↪SteveKlinko

There never is any kind of Seeing in the sense that we think we understand it. There is always only Detection.
But this is precisely the claim that needs arguing for, not assuming. You are telling a story about vision that may or may not lead to a hard problem, but you have provided no argument that your account of vision that leads to that problem is correct - including, by the way, the pretty brute realism that underlies it.


So it seems clear that the process that produces the Red in the two different cases must be the same.
Again, just assumptions. What if I insist that in the one case what is produced is the seeing of something red and in the other the mere representation of something red? In that case the processes are different. — jkg20

Here is an argument for the general perception of Light of any Wavelength. This argument is based on an engineering analysis approach where we trace the path of the perception of Light. The first thing that happens is that Physical Light enters the Eye and is focused onto the Retina. The instant the Physical Light hits the Retina it activates the Rods and Cones. Various wavelengths of Physical Light will preferentially activate various different Rods and Cones. The Physical Light is absorbed by the Rods and Cones and the Physical Light is no longer Physical Light. What is left is an avalanche of chemical reactions that eventually fires a Neuron that sends a signal away from the Retina and to the Visual Areas (VAs) of the Cerebral Cortex, and this happens for millions of Neurons at the same time and these signals are all bundled into the Optic Nerve. It’s a long journey from the Retina through the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus (LGN) of the Thalamus and to the Visual Areas which are located in the back of the head. One of the known functions of the LGN is to block Visual information from the Eye during sleep. During this whole trip from Eye to the VAs we are not dealing with Physical Light anymore but rather this is of course Neural Activity. The Neural Activity eventually progresses to the first Visual Area (V1) to get processed and is then sent to the second Visual Area (V2) and on to other Visual Areas V3, V4, V5, and more. All the areas also send signals back to previous Areas to create a giant mish mash of parallel processing that is difficult to completely quantify. All the processing and feedback is also Neural Activity since it is correlated with the Physical Light. But the Physical Light is long gone, all you have is Neural Activity. So all we can really say is that we experience Neural Activity not Physical Light. But the Neural Activity as described is not Conscious Light (the Conscious experience od Light) yet. It’s just Neural Activity. Where is the experience of Conscious Light? We know when this Neural Activity happens that Conscious Light happens. But the Conscious Light cannot be found in the Brain. Ok, it’s not found YET, and maybe someday it will be found in the Brain. One thing for sure is that we don't experience the actual Physical Light but rather we experience the Neural Activity that was correlated with the Physical Light.

The Conscious experience of the Light that we are so familiar with is the result of Neural Activity. In fact anything that can stimulate Neural Activity will produce the Conscious Light effect. You can rub your eyes and See Lights. This is because rubbing your eyes stimulates Neural Activity. There is much Neural Activity while Dreaming at night and you can See Light while Dreaming. This is Conscious Light and is certainly not any kind of Physical Light. Dream Light is a perfect example showing that Conscious Light is something different than Physical Light. We have never Seen Physical Light but only our own internal Conscious Light. One final example is After Images. These are images of the scene you were looking at after you close your eyes. The Retina and Cortex Activity takes a while to shutdown after your eyes are closed. The Retina and Cortex activity quickly extinguishes but you still See Light for a number of seconds after you close your eyes where there is no longer Light hitting the Retina. This is again the Conscious Light. So it is the Neural Activity that we See as Light. The question is how does this Neural Activity get converted into the Conscious Light that we experience?

Yes, 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.

We Do Not See Objects We Detect Objects

The Big Bang happens and a new Universe is created. This Universe consists of Matter, Energy, and Space. After billions of years of complicated interactions and processes the Matter, Energy, and Space produce a planet with Conscious Life Forms (CLFs). In the course of their evolution the CLFs will need to See each other in order to live and interact with each other. But what does it really mean to See? A CLF is first of all a Physical Thing. There is no magic power that just lets a CLF See another CLF. A CLF can only Detect another CLF through some sensing mechanism which must be made out of Physical material and which uses Physical processes. There never is any kind of Seeing in the sense that we think we understand it. There is always only Detection.

So a CLF might understand that it does not ever really See another CLF, but it will still insist that it Sees the reflected Light. The CLF would be mistaken if it thinks it Sees even the reflected Light. All it can do is Detect the reflected Light. Its sensing mechanism can only produce Physical reactions, like Neural Activity, that are correlated with the reflected Light. If the reflected Light is Red the sensing mechanism will fire Neurons that only fire for Red inputs. The CLF might be able to sense that the Red Neurons are firing. So every time these Neurons fire it can report that it is seeing Red. This CLF is only sensing particular Neurons firing and is not experiencing Red like we do.

A CLF like us Sees Red as a Conscious experience and is not aware of any Neural Activity. This Conscious Red Experience is how we Detect Red Light from the external Physical World. The Red that we see is a Surrogate for the 680nm Wavelength Light that is impinging on our Retinas. The two things we know are:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens
2) A Conscious experience of Red happens

The question we should all be considering is, how does 1 happening result in 2 happening? This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the answer to the question would explain the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness.

The people that are still talking about Wavelengths of Light don't understand the basic Hard Problem of Consciousness or the Explanatory Gap.

You still have to convince your opponent that in cases (1) or (2) that there is any occurent instance of redness that a person is aware of when a person has a mental image of a red snooker ball or dreams about a red snooker ball. In both cases the person imagining/dreaming might be thought of as representing the existence of a red snooker ball, but representation of a red snooker ball can be accomplished without the vehicle of representation actually being red. After all, I can represent a red snooker ball with the words "red snooker ball" but those words are not red. In case (3), of course, there very definitely is an occurent instance of redness of which the person is aware and it is the redness of the very snooker ball that the person sees.
From this kind of perspective you are just inventing pseudo problems. — jkg20

My experience of a Red snooker ball, or any Red object, in a Dream is that it is just as Red as my experience of Red in awake Consciousness. You might be someone that does not Dream in color in which case the Redness of things in your Dreams might seem less than in awake Consciousness. If I try to remember what the Red looked like after Dreaming I can not produce in my Mind a photographic reconstruction of the Dream experience. But it is also true that if I try to remember any Red experiences that I might have had while awake I can not produce a photographic reconstruction of the awake experience.The vividness of the Redness is just as intense whether Dreaming or Awake, for me. So it seems clear that the process that produces the Red in the two different cases must be the same.

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect.. — Marcus de Brun — SteveKlinko

If you are talking about Conscious Volition then the sequence would be from Conscious Mind to Physical Mind (Brain). We have no idea how a Conscious desire to move your hand, for example, results in Neurons firing in the Motion Control centers of the Cortex to produce the motion. But for incoming Sensory signals the sequence is logically from Neural Activity to Conscious experience.

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect.. — Marcus de Brun

Lets consider the Conscious experience of the color Red again. The chain of events is from Physical Red Light hitting the Retina to downstream Neural Activity that culminates in Neurons for Red firing in the Visual Cortex and then the Conscious experience of Red occurs. Seems to me it makes no sense to stipulate that the Conscious experience ever happens before the Neural Activity in this logical chain of events.

Sorry to all for my delayed responses btw. I've been too distracted in the summer...

I'm not quite sure what is simpler when it comes to Sensory inputs but I suppose a Bell and a Flashing — SteveKlinkoI think I meant that the bell would theoretically be simpler than the Red Experience, since The Red E. specifically involves the conscious aspect. — Tyler

When we talk about the Bell we are talking about the Conscious experience of Sound. To make the Sound analogous to the Red we should talk about a pure tone, lets use standard A pitch at 440 Hz. This is simpler than the Bell which can have multiple other components around the fundamental. The point is that the Physical Sound has the 44Hz Property. The Conscious Sound experience has no 440Hz Property. The Physical Sound is made out of pressure waves in the air that oscillate at 440Hz. The Conscious Sound experience is a Continuous sensation or experience. There is no sensation of oscillation in the Conscious Standard A Sound that you experience. The Conscious Sound is a Surrogate for the Physical Sound. You can hear the Standard A Sound without any Physical Standard A Sound in your dreams. The thing you have always experienced as Sound is just your own internal creation. How the Brain translates signals from the ear into the Conscious Sound experience is the great mystery of the study of Consciousness. It is the classic Hard Problem of Consciousness.

But to me Red is a very simple basic Experience. — SteveKlinkoI agree that red itself is basic, but The Red E. is specifically more complex since it requires conscious focus regarding red. Without the conscious focus and attention, I think red does become simple (similar to hearing a bell), but without the conscious aspect, there is no Red Experience, and no problem with explanation. Without conscious focus, red is just a light wave-length measurement I believe. — Tyler

The Conscious Red experience is not a wavelength of Light. The Red experience is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. You can see Red in Dreams at night where there is no Physical Red Light.

There's nothing more to it than Explaining how the Experience and Experiencer are Neural Activity. — SteveKlinkoRight, and it has been explained by science, how the simple experiences (without conscious focus involved) are neural activity, has it not?
So if simple experiences are explained, then complex experiences involving conscious focus, can be explained by complex combinations of those simple experiences (by my theory) — Tyler

The experience of Red or the Standard A Pitch are completely unexplained by Science at this point in time.

↪SteveKlinko

For me the Redness of the Red is just as Red in 2 and 3.
So now red itself can be red? Can it also be yellow or blue? — jkg20

I use the redundant Redness of the Red to make people stop and think about the sensation or experience of the Red itself for a moment. What is that Redness? Electromagnetic Waves at 680nm do not have the Property of Redness. There is only oscillating Electric and Magnetic fields. When you think about what an Electromagnetic Wave is, it is clear that the Red that we See does not have anything to do with the Wave itself. Do you get the sensation of oscillating Electric and Magnetic fields when you See the Red snooker ball? The Red we See is created in a further processing stage of our Visual system. The Red that we see is a Surrogate for the 680nm Electromagnetic Wave.

↪SteveKlinko

Since the Red we experience with all 3 of these things is the same or at least similar, it is completely sensible to think that there has to be something common in the production of all three.
You are kind of missing jkg20's point I think. You seem to imply that in all three cases that there is an instance of redness that we are aware of. That might be the case for (3), but is it for (2) and (1)? What are you going to say to someone like jkg20 who denies (or at least appears to be denying) that any instance of redness is involved in cases of (1) and (2), and that it is only in case (3) that we have a genuine instance of redness, and it is the redness of the snooker ball? — MetaphysicsNow

For me the Redness of the Red is just as Red in 2 and 3. With 1 the sensation of Redness is more vague but the Redness is there nevertheless. It's impossible for me to show anyone else what my own internal Conscious experiences are. If someone truly cannot have a Red Mental Imagery experience then I would have to believe them. But for the purpose of advancing the study we can only assume that our Conscious experiences are more similar than they are different.

Let me have one last stab at explaining myself, although I thought my last reply to Pattern-chaser put it as clearly as possible. Consider the following three phenomena:
1) Having a mental image of a red snooker ball.
2) Having a dream of a red snooker ball.
3) Seeing a red snooker ball.
I am in no way shape or form denying that such phenomena as these exist: people engage in mental imagery, people dream and people see. The specific assumption (and an assumption is all that it is at the moment) I am bringing into the spotlight and challenging is that those three phenomena share a common factor over and above the bare fact that they are about a red snooker ball. You and Pattern-chaser appear to believe that there is such a common factor, but have provided no arguments for agreeing with you. Furthermore, you both also appear to be suggesting (again, suggesting and not arguing) that redness is really only a feature of this supposed common factor. Why should anyone join you in so assuming if doing so at best just leads to problems that can be otherwise avoided, and at worst involves the kind of incoherence that the blog page I linked to indicates? — jkg20

Since the Red we experience with all 3 of these things is the same or at least similar, it is completely sensible to think that there has to be something common in the production of all three. Why would you not first investigate the common properties (Redness)? If investigation shows that there is no connection then that is ok. If you assume different causes at the front end of the study then what do you have to work with? It's the commonness of the Red that gives us something to ponder.

↪SteveKlinko The blog site is specifically targetted at the account of colour vision you sketched out and does not deal with dreams at all. As regards dreaming, the claim that anyone sees anything in a dream needs arguing for, not just assuming. Dreaming might involve mental imagery, sure, but it remains an unargued assumption that seeing involves mental imagery. After all, I can have mental images of things far distant when I am looking at things standing right in front of me. — jkg20

To prove that Mental Imagery and Dreams exist would be to solve the problem of Consciousness itself. You are asking for the Answer before you even start thinking about the Problem. For now we have to assume these things exist or we will get nowhere. We only have our own inner experiences to work with. I have Conscious Visual Imagery experiences when I am awake and also when I Dream. Nobody can prove to you that those experiences exist. What are those experiences?

↪SteveKlinko

All you have to do is rub your eyes and you can see Lights. So we know that even that very external mechanical stimulation of the Visual system can create a Visual effect. Stands to reason that more direct probing inside the Brain will produce all kinds of Auditory, Visual, and Memory experiences. I thought this was realized by Science decades ago and is pretty much common knowledge by now.
I don't think it is common knowledge, more like common jumping to conclusions. The picture you go on to paint in the subsequent part of your response seems like it might be based on the kind of conceptual confusion that this blog article hints at and that Janus also seem to have had in mind in his earlier remarks. Take visible features like colour and shape out of the world in which objects like brains and retinas and snooker balls exist and it becomes impossible to say anything coherent about that world at all. — jkg20

There are no Fermions or Bosons involved with the scene you might See while dreaming. In this case the scene you See is not correlated with any Fermion and Boson configurations in the real world. So half of the premise of the article is not even true. The contradiction does not even exist.

It seems to me that you are manufacturing false problems. You say no one "knows what the redness is"; which seems to be a question as to what it "ultimately is". Then I would say no one knows what anything is in this kind of demanding sense. We do know that redness is information. The question as to the location of that information seems to be a malformed one, so why should we worry about it? — Janus

When you say why should we worry I guess you are saying that you just don't care about the problem of the Conscious perception of Red. That's ok for you, because there are many different things to think about with Consciousness. I choose to study the Human Visual system. The input is Physical Light and the output is Conscious Light in your Conscious Mind. I am fascinated by the Conscious Visual Image that is embedded in the front of our faces showing us what is in the scene we are looking at. Red is one component of that Image. I think it is best to pick an aspect of Consciousness and stick with it. I think that when someone finally figures out what Red actually is then they will have solved the larger Consciousness Problem.

I think that asking Where the Red is might just get people to think about Red in a deeper way. People generally think the Red is out there in the world of things. That apple is Red and so the Red is out there. But as we think more deeply about the Red we see that it isn't out there after all but it is somehow only in our Conscious Minds. It is sensible to ask: Where is the Conscious Mind that is having the Red experience? It is therefore sensible to ask: Where is the Red itself? So I don't agree that it is a Malformed question.

I would say that redness is information; and information is an inherent aspect of matter, energy and space, not something substantially different such as to warrant a belief in fundamental dualism. — Janus

Since nobody knows what the Redness is, it could be as you say or as I say. But it seems to me that because Science has not been able to figure out what it is after a hundred years of trying, that it is more sensible at this time to say that it must be something other than Matter, Energy, or Space.

The whole problem is more complicated than just understanding what the Redness is. Science must understand what the Observer of the Redness is. Maybe when Science understands the Observer the Redness will become obvious.

You seem to be thinking of space as something "out there", and because science tells you that redness is not out there is the world you are denying that it exists in "physical space". But this is dualistic thinking. 'Out there" and "in here" are relative to the boundaries of the body, and in that sense, because seeing red is an interaction between physical process external to the body and physical processes internal to the body the seeing of red is both out there and in here.

But the internal processes of the body are also in physical space, there is no reason to believe there is anything that is really, as opposed to merely from a certain viewpoint seeming to be, 'outside of space". The very idea is absurd and incoherent, when you think about it. — Janus

But I am saying that the Red is not something that we can categorize as Matter, Energy, or Space. It is something different. It is a Conscious thing. So in that sense what can you say about where the Red is? I know that if I say that the Red is outside of normal Physics you could interpret that as a positional thing. But when I say outside I just mean it is something different than normal Physics. Of course I am a Dualist. Who wouldn't be?

but how can any kind of Neural Activity result in that Experience? — SteveKlinko> Do you mean, how it can result in specifically the Red experience, or generally any experience?
Do you agree that simpler neural activity, results in simpler experiences?
eg. audio sensory input, results in the experience of simply hearing a bell — Tyler

I'm not quite sure what is simpler when it comes to Sensory inputs but I suppose a Bell and a Flashing Light would be more complicated and would result in a more complicated experience (I see a Light and hear a Bell).

Scientists have no idea how Neural Activity causes or results in the Red experience. — SteveKlinko> If its agreed that simpler sensory input causes simpler experiences, then I believe (just as with consciousness) the Red is caused in a similar process, just involving multiple simultaneous experiences. — Tyler

But to me Red is a very simple basic Experience.

Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — SteveKlinko> If the experience is caused by neural activity, then the experience and the experiencer are simply neural activity. There may be nothing more to it. — Tyler

There's nothing more to it than Explaining how the Experience and Experiencer are Neural Activity. The Hard Problem remains.

We know that the Redness of the snooker ball will ultimately produce particular Neural Activity in the Brain. The Neural Activity is what leads to the Conscious Red experience. We know this because, if these particular Neurons are stimulated in the right way by probing, then the same Conscious Red experience can be attained. Maybe not of a snooker ball but the experience will be of Redness.

First, the research on visual cortical stimulation that I am aware of doesn't warrant such a claim to knowledge. For ethical reasons, the evidence base is exceedingly small, for one thing. Also, the reports of the actual subjects at most show that stimulation of the visual cortex is statistically correlated with reports of phosphenes, but even some of those reports involve the curious idea that these phosphenes - whatever they are - are colourless. If you have more recent and definitive research to back up your claim, I'd be interested if you could provide a link to it.
Secondly, you mention yourself the redness of the snooker ball as the start of a supposedly causal story in vision - the end of that causal story is that I see the redness of the snooker ball. Nothing so far said requires the existence of any other instance of redness to enter the picture. The supposed neural activity you are talking about could simply be part of what goes on in opening us up to an actual feature of the environment. — jkg20

All you have to do is rub your eyes and you can see Lights. So we know that even that very external mechanical stimulation of the Visual system can create a Visual effect. Stands to reason that more direct probing inside the Brain will produce all kinds of Auditory, Visual, and Memory experiences. I thought this was realized by Science decades ago and is pretty much common knowledge by now.

The snooker ball reflects Physical Light at a Wavelength of 680nm. This Physical Light has no Redness as a Property. It only has Wavelength. This Physical Light doesn't Look like anything. The Physical Light hits the Retina and is processed by the Brain to produce the Conscious Red Light (Qualia) that we actually See. The Conscious Red Light is what has the Property of Redness. We don't see Physical Light we only See the Surrogate that the Brain creates. When we dream about Red things we are Seeing our internal Conscious Red Light. No Physical Light exists when we See Red in a Dream. This is because the Red has always only been inside your Mind

As I reread my text, I wonder why you can't see we're in almost exact agreement over this. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

I think it was the last sentence that got me off on the track I went on. It seemed like you were saying that the snooker ball actually had the Redness property itself.

Robots and (some) animals can detect electromagnetic radiation whose wavelength is around 700 nm; only humans can see the redness of the snooker ball. — Pattern-chaser

The snooker ball does not have Redness as a Property. The snooker ball reflects Light at a Wavelength of 680 nm. But the Red Light has no Redness Property. The Red Light actually does not Look like anything. The Brain converts the Red Light into the Conscious experience of Redness. Redness is a Property of a Conscious Phenomenon. Redness does not exist in the Physical Universe. Redness only exists in the Conscious Universe. It's a subtle distinction but it has vast consequences for the ultimate understanding of Consciousness. I'm not saying that you don't, but many people do not understand this.

It is? It looks to me like the Hard Problem of (misapplied) science. For good reasons (that we don't really want to investigate here), science reduces humans to impartial observers, or ignores them altogether. This makes it difficult or impossible to come up with a scientific way of studying humans as active participants (in the world), instead of impartial observers. The success of science is (for me) beyond challenge, but it is not a tool that fits every problem, and this is one of the ones it doesn't fit.

These matters can be investigated, but it looks to me like we need to use considered, structured, thought to do it. No theories, no falsifiable hypotheses (and so forth), just careful consideration. It's what we have. We must use it, or we have nothing. — Pattern-chaser

The Hard Problem is a Philosophical not a Scientific proposition. I agree we can only use the tools that are available at this moment in history. If Considered, Structured, Thought is all we have then we must use it.

I suppose I am a Dualist and an Indirect Realist. But I don't like to put myself in one of these boxes because there is usually other baggage that comes with these kinds of labels that I will ultimately reject.

We know that the Redness of the snooker ball will ultimately produce particular Neural Activity in the Brain. The Neural Activity is what leads to the Conscious Red experience. We know this because, if these particular Neurons are stimulated in the right way by probing, then the same Conscious Red experience can be attained. Maybe not of a snooker ball but the experience will be of Redness. So it would seem that the experience of Redness is a Neural Activity based phenomenon. But yet the experience of Redness cannot be found in the Neurons. The Conscious Red experience is only in the Mind. Physical Red Light has a particular Wavelength but does not have any Property of Redness. Conscious Red Light has Redness as a Property but has no Property of Wavelength. Redness does not even exist in the Physical World. It is purely a Conscious Property of a Conscious thing. So naturally the question arises ... Given:

A) Neural Activity for Red happens
B) A Conscious experience of Red happens

How does A lead to or produce B? This is just the Hard Problem of Consciousness stated as a question. It is the Explanatory Gap. Finding the link between A and B is what I'm looking for. See http://TheInterMind.com for more information on this.

The inner self is connected to the thalamus. — wellwisher

We speculate that the Conscious Mind is connected to the Physical Mind (the Brain) in some way. If the inner Self is connected to the Thalamus then the real question is how? There must be some other Mind component or mechanism that provides this connection. This is what I call the Inter Mind.

1) I see the redness of the snooker ball.
2) I consciously see the redness of the snooker ball.
In what kind of circumstances could the truth of these two statements come apart?
If they are always true or false in the same circumstances, then what is added by talk of consciously seeing anything.
In both cases, it looks like what is being seen is an instances of a visible property and that instance, wherever it is, is no more inside my skull than the snooker ball itself is. — jkg20

I think 1 can imply the sense that the Visual Image of the snooker ball is Out There in the external world and you are really Seeing it as it is. But 2 more precisely specifies that the Visual Image is an Internal Conscious phenomenon where you are not Directly Seeing the snooker ball but are actually Seeing a Surrogate, created by your Mind, of the snooker ball. There are still many people (including the Direct Realists) that believe 1 is true. To understand 2 you have to understand that you have never Seen a snooker ball but you have only Seen your Internal Conscious Visual experience of the snooker ball. Item 2 might be redundant to you but it is important to always emphasize the Consciousness aspect when talking about these things to a more general audience. You never know who is viewing these forums. Lot's of people view but never post.

It is periodically a good thing to refresh what this thread is about. See http://TheInterMind.com for the full presentation of the Inter Mind Model.

But how can something like the experience of Red come from Memory Access? — SteveKlinko> Basically, the same way that emotions, or dreams, or mindful images/ sounds can come from memory access. The experience of Red is just perhaps a more complex combination of such memory access. — Tyler

No doubt that Neural Activity seems to happen when a Red Experience happens, but how can any kind of Neural Activity result in that Experience? Memory Access is just a type of Neural Activity. Scientists have known that there was a Correlation between Neural Activity and Conscious experience for a hundred years. The knowledge that certain types of Neural Activity happen when the Red experience happens is the Easy Problem of Consciousness.

Scientists can only say there is a Correlation between Neural Activity and the Red experience. Scientists have no idea how Neural Activity causes or results in the Red experience. Scientists don't actually even know what the Experience of Red is. They also don't even know what the Experiencer is, that is having the Experience. Scientist do not know what they themselves are. Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. Scientists understandably then mostly ignore the Experience and the Experiencer. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Ok, Look for Blue. It's on my punch list.

Yes. What is Red? Where is Red? When we know Red and find Red we will have solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness, not just for Red but for all Conscious Experience.

You raised the issue of language.

Who is your audience? I find it confusing.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red tells me nothing about where the red is.

Certainly the materialists consider their experience of red to be "conscious."

There is no un"conscious" experience of red.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red only raises the forgoing issues, it does not resolve them.

Just saying. — Arne

I didn't raise any language issue. A bunch of posts back somebody made the claim that if we could just "Get the Language Right" then the Hard Problem would go away. Anything I said about language was probably referring to that. My audience is anyone that is interested. So it bothers you that I say Conscious Red Experience? Is it your opinion that saying Conscious Red Experience is redundant and I should just say Red Experience? This is confusing to you? It maybe slightly redundant but confusing, I don't think so. Sorry, I actually don't understand your complaint.

You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. — SteveKlinko
if you are serious about the language problem, then ask yourself:

what is the difference between:

1. a conscious experience of Red; and
2. an experience of red.

Unnecessary words cause confusion. — Arne

I think that for some people 2 opens up the possibility that the Red is out there in the Physical World. Whereas 1 emphasizes the fact that the Red it is in your Conscious Mind. Extra words can further specify and define things.

You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space. — SteveKlinko
This doesn't square with everyday common knowledge.

Conscious Space(whatever that is supposed to refer to) is in the universe, right? Everything in the universe is in 'physical' space. Everything that exists does so by virtue of being in physical space. — creativesoul

If the Conscious Red experience is a thing that exists in Physical Space then what is it? Is it made out of Matter, Energy, or is it some aspect of Physical Space? Can you describe what Red is using any words of any language? Red and I mean the Redness itself is not describable. Red is a Conscious experience that exists in the Conscious Mind. The Conscious Red experience is how we Detect Physical Red Light. We have never Seen Physical Red Light, but only our internal Conscious Red Light. Physical Red Light does not Look like anything. Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. Most people are so used to Seeing their own Conscious Red Light that they think it is the way Physical Red Light actually Looks.

It makes little sense to insist that the Red experience is some Physical Space Phenomenon. It makes more sense to propose that the Red experience and all Conscious experience takes place in some new Conscious Space. Conscious Space is not like a Physical Space. It is just a conceptual place to put Conscious experiences. Although it might someday be discovered to be an actual Scientific principle.

The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. — SteveKlinko
What on earth is 'the redness of the red' supposed to be talking about? What's wrong with just plain 'red'? As above, red exists in physical space. — creativesoul

I say things like the Redness of the Red to Emphasize the Conscious experience of Red. I think that when you think about the Redness itself without the context of anything else you will discover the absolute Mystery of the Phenomenon. You will understand that it is not really something that is even in the Physical Universe. If it is in the Physical Universe then what is it and where is it?

Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property. The Conscious Red that you See has Redness as a Property but does not have Wavelength as a Property. The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. In general our Conscious Light is how we Detect Physical Light. Physical Light does not Look like anything. We only know our Conscious Light. — SteveKlinko
Red is a range of wavelength. See that last claim above? Do you understand that you've defined this notion of 'Physical Light' along with this notion of 'Conscious Light' in such a way that you've admitted that you do not know, cannot know perhaps, about what you're talking about? — creativesoul

We all know what Physical Red Light is from Science. We all know what Conscious Red Light (Red Light Qualia if you like) is from our Conscious experience of it. We know both of these things but they are separate things. The thing that Science does not know is how the Physical Red Light gets converted into the Conscious Red Light that we actually See. We have never Seen Physical Red Light but rather we have only ever Seen our own internal Conscious Red Light. So the Conscious Red Light Phenomenon is a purely Conscious Mind Phenomenon. And nobody knows what they are talking about when they talk about Consciousness. We must however speculate on new ways of approaching the Problem of Consciousness if we are ever going to solve it.

As before, I'm reminded of Kant's Noumena. — creativesoul

Conscious experience is discussed in many different ways by many different writers.

So the Conscious Red experience is not a Chimera, but rather it is just something outside of normal Scientific knowledge. But it could become part of Normal Scientific knowledge if we could understand it a whole lot more. — SteveKlinko
That does not follow from anything you've written. — creativesoul

Seems perfectly reasonable that when Science discovers new things about how Consciousness works that those things will become part of normal Scientific knowledge regardless of anything I have written.
Visit http://TheInterMind.com to see a more in depth development of Conscious Space and Conscious Light.

Do you seriously think a Robot has a Conscious Red experience? — SteveKlinko
Do you seriously think I claimed robots are conscious? — tom

You say things like this :

I think you might be assuming too much here. When a robot sees red, the seeing-red is definitely occurring in physical space — tom

I think when you say the Robot Sees Red you mean that the Robot only Detects Red. It does not have a Conscious experience of Red. Ok I get it.

The Human Brain processes signals but there is an extra processing stage that a Computer does not have. — SteveKlinko
How many processing stages are required to create qualia? 2, 3, 4? How does the last one create the qualia? Why can't a robot have that "extra processing stage"? — tom

Nobody knows how that final stage works. But it is clear that there is a Consciousness stage in our chain of Visual Processing stages. And your question: How does the last stage create the Qualia? is the Question that Science cannot answer yet. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

I think a Robot with the right hardware could very well have Consciousness. Only after we understand our own Consciousness will we be able to design Robots with Consciousness. I think the hardware will be a lot different than we have today.

I think I understand now. You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space. — SteveKlinko
I think you might be assuming too much here. When a robot sees red, the seeing-red is definitely occurring in physical space — tom

Do you seriously think a Robot has a Conscious Red experience? I think you must know that a Robot is just a Computer that is processing numbers. The Human Brain processes signals but there is an extra processing stage that a Computer does not have. it is the stage where the Red experience is generated. We don't sense what our Neurons are doing but rather we interface through the Conscious stage of the Visual process.

The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property. — SteveKlinko
Again, in a robot, when it sees red, certain physical changes happen in its circuitry that correspond to red. You could point to the circuits and say, "Look, the robot is seeing red!" but there would be no consciousness there. — tom

Ok I agree with this. But it sounds like you are saying something different in the comment above.

The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. — SteveKlinko
Maybe, but is not the quale of red more in the nature of what-it-is-like to see red, rather than a surrogate for photons of a certain energy? — tom

The Quale is the Surrogate. I think saying Conscious Red Light is more descriptive than saying the Red Light Qualia. Sorry, it's my fault for using non standard Philosophical terminology.

When memory is formed, sensory input is combined with an emotional tag, by aspects of the limbic system, and then written to the cerebral matter. If we see red, this input data is stored as visual data with an emotional tag. If we see red again, this will trigger previous memories, which will also trigger the emotional tag, that had been added.

Since memory has both sensory content and emotions, we can trigger memory from either side. We can think of a feeling and images will appear in our mind. If we feel hungry, we will start to imagine food we would like to eat. Or one can think of an event; wedding, and emotions will appear.

In the case of the color red, this triggers previous visual memories, which triggers emotions. The emotions can then trigger other memories; red sports car, with some of these memories triggering related emotions; desire, etc., It is this chain reaction reverberation in memory that creates the dynamics in awareness we call conscious. The stimulus becomes alive to us.

In tradition, red is a warm color due to how fire is red. This is the same sensory color input and will get a very similar tag. Fire is one of those dramatic primal memories which will reverberate when we see red. This can bring us to other places, separate in space and time; old memories, from which two references appear so consciousness can isolate itself. — wellwisher

All this may be true. But the question remains: How do we See Red? A Memory of Red is just chemical modifications among the Neurons associated with the Memory. There is never any Red actually stored. So when the Memory is accessed there are only chemical changes that are detected. How do the chemical changes and all the Neural Activity get converted into the experience of Red? That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Also remember that when there is an Experience of Red then there is an Experiencer that has the Experience. This is also part of the Hard Problem.

Yes. The same I've been using. Normal parlance does just fine. The problem is the language use itself.

The very notion of "A Conscious Red experience" is problematic. It's a chimera. There is no such thing — creativesoul

I think I understand now. You are saying that there is no such thing as the Conscious Red experience. Do you not See the color Red? If you do then it is real. It exists in what I like to call Conscious Space. It does not exist in Physical Space. The Redness of the Red is a Property that only exists in Conscious Space. There is no Redness in Physical Space. Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property but does not in fact have Redness as a Property. The Conscious Red that you See has Redness as a Property but does not have Wavelength as a Property. The Conscious Red Light is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. In general our Conscious Light is how we Detect Physical Light. Physical Light does not Look like anything. We only know our Conscious Light. So the Conscious Red experience is not a Chimera, but rather it is just something outside of normal Scientific knowledge. But it could become part of Normal Scientific knowledge if we could understand it a whole lot more.

But what is the Experience of the color Red?

The problem is the language use. Some frameworks are ill suited for taking proper account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our discovery of it. Pre and/or non-linguistic mental ongoings are one such thing. Consciousness consists, in part at least, of precisely such things. Since consciousness requires(is existentially dependent upon) pre and/or no linguistic mental ongoings, if we get those wrong we have no choice but to get consciousness wrong as well.

That' part of what I'm getting at here. Here's a bit more...

It is the user of "consciousness" who bears the burden of clear definition lest the resulting conception is muddled. There is nothing in conversation about consciousness that cannot be adequately accounted for and subsequently elaborated upon by a better framework. All of which is sure to sharpen one's understanding. This is all the product of better language use.

That is to say that all conceptions of consciousness point to that which can be better taken account of in when we talk in terms of thought and belief(pre and/or non-linguistic mental ongoings). Not all thought and belief are pre and/or non-linguistic, but that's an aside.

All consciousness consists of thought and belief. Not all thought and belief requires consciousness. Thus, consciousness is existentially dependent upon thought and belief, but not necessarily the other way around, although some complex thought and belief are virtually indistinguishable from consciousness. Thought and belief begin simply and grow in complexity.

Get thought and belief right, and our conception of consciousness will be better as an inevitable result. — creativesoul

I agree with you about language up to a point. I try not to talk about Consciousness in general but instead I like to use language that talks about particular aspects of Consciousness. Specifically I am interested in how we See. I believe Science has shown us what happens inside the Brain when we See. Science can point to the exact areas in the Brain where Neural Activity happens when we See. But I like to narrow this down even more to recognizing the particular Neural Activity that happens when we have an Experience of the color Red. Science may know what Neural Activity happens when we See the color Red but Science knows nothing about how the Conscious experience of Red happens. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I like to encapsulate the Hard Problem in a question. I post this question all the time on the forums but it is a central question that needs to be asked over and over ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens
2) A Conscious Red experience happens

How does 2 happen when 1 happens? The answer to this question must include an understanding of what 2 is in the first place.

Would you say there is something wrong with the language used to describe the problem? What language would you use to describe the problem?

I've been doing a lot of thinking on what consciousness is and how it may arise, I'm going to share my ideas and you can feel free to try and disprove them or discuss it further.

So to make his brief, I believe that consciousness arises whenever energy flows through matter or is in matter. Energy flowing or being in different parts of the brain activates different forms of consciousness. No energy flow, similar to when we are asleep means no consciousness.

To further extend on this idea, this would mean that computers would also have to be conscious, since it is indeed energy flowing through matter (the circuits).

Energy flowing in different parts of the computer would give rise to different forms of consciousness (qualia?).

Perhaps I'm wrong but feel free to share your thoughts, thanks in advance. — Amadeus

My first question would be: What Energy Flow are you referring to? A normal Energy of Science or are you speculating on a new Energy not known to Science?

In previous responses I said that you can see objective and subjective red objects. You seem to want misunderstanding me.
Anyway, even when you imagine a red tomato, you need to see it with "imagined" light. Are you able to imagine a red thing in a dark scenario? You are only questioning "What is red?", "What is Red"? like a colorblind. Sorry, but it is not interesting for me. — Belter

Unfortunate that you can not appreciate the question: What is Red? To me it is a pivotal question. It is not the only question but you have to start somewhere. I like to stick with trying to understand what seems like a simple thing (Redness) but when you consider it long enough you see the mystery of it. If we could understand what Red is we would understand an aspect of Consciousness itself. Remember that Red only exists in the Conscious Mind.

Red is how individuals see certain objects when they are lighted. This is a psychological fact. You are which must prove that the scientific view of colors is wrong. The Chalmers' argument in my view only proves that fantasy is very persuasive. — Belter

I can See Red while dreaming. No objects are being lighted there.

Universal Computing is about physics, the way reality is structured, how information flows, and also about computers.

If we accept for the sake of argument, that the brain is a computationally universal physical structure, like Babbage's Analytic Engine, or a PC, then anything the brain can do, so can these other objects. The implication of this is that consciousness cannot be a material property, or be associated with any particular physics. — tom

If you are saying that Consciousness is something outside of known Scientific knowledge, then I agree.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness refers to the problem of explaining how conscious phenomena, qualia, relate to physical phenomena. Well, the implication from computational universality is that qualia cannot relate to any particular physical structure, and thus the Hard Problem is dismissed. — tom

Seems like there is a relationship between Neural Activity in certain Brain structures that is Correlated with Qualia. So could you say a little more about what you mean by this?

The Other Hard Problem (Hard Problem 2.0) is how do abstract entities obtain qualia. Qualia are a software feature rather than a hardware emergence. — tom

This just sounds like the original Hard Problem. When you say it's a Software feature I am lost. What Software are you talking about?