Seems like a logical view. But I still need to know what Red is.

The fact that the Human Mind created the Laptop would indicate that the Human Mind is greater than the Laptop. — SteveKlinko
That's like saying Microsoft Word is greater than your laptop. Comparisons don't work unless you are comparing things of the same type. — tom

I don't get your point here. Microsoft Word didn't create a Laptop.

First of all a Brain is nothing like a Computer. A Brain has Trillions of simultaneous Neural Firings at any instant of time. — SteveKlinko
It is proved, that under currently known laws of physics, there is no such thing as a physical system that can undergo any dynamics that cannot be exactly emulated on a universal computer. This means that nothing can exist in nature which can out-compute a universal computer in any fundamental way.

So, either the brain is a universal computer, or it is less than one.

This link takes me to David Deutsch's talk which begins at ~2:50:00 into the Dirac Medal Ceremony. Very interesting talk about the discovery of his principle.

What do you mean by Hard Problem 2.0? — tom

Good video. Gave me new insight into Universal Computing. I thought it was about Computers, but I see a Brain and a piece of writing paper could serve the same purpose but slower. How does any of this solve the Hard Problem and leave a Hard Problem 2.0 to be solved? Now can you tell me what the Hard Problem 2.0 is?

Science talks about Dark Energy and Dark Matter like that, You do not get closer to understanding these things if you just use different language. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Consciousness are true unsolved mysteries of Science. — SteveKlinko
I don't think you understand. Have fun. — creativesoul

I truly don't understand what you are saying. If you don't want to continue the discussion then maybe you should not be on discussion Forums.

The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle tells us (proves based on known physics) that all computationally universal devices are equivalent.

Now, there is no proof that the human brain is computationally universal, but there are extremely strong arguments to support this. The human brain not only instantiates a mind, but is capable of language, knowledge creation etc. Just visit a university library, then formulate an argument that the brain is not universal, that it is restricted somehow. i.e. that it is less than a laptop computer.

Since the brain, and computers are universal, then what one can do, the others also can. This is entirely independent of the particular physics that underlies the design or evolution of the device.

The clear implication of this, is that any abstraction instantiated on a universal computer cannot be a consequence of the particular physics. By extension, features of such abstractions, such as self-awareness, cannot be properties of the physics, they must be properties of the abstraction.

Thus the "Hard Problem" is solved. We now only need to solve the "Hard Problem 2.0". — tom

The fact that the Human Mind created the Laptop would indicate that the Human Mind is greater than the Laptop.

First of all a Brain is nothing like a Computer. A Brain has Trillions of simultaneous Neural Firings at any instant of time. A 4 core Computer can only do 4 things at any instant of time. So a 4 core Computer in effect only has 4 Neurons. At each instant any of the cores can be executing: Add, Sub, Mult, Div, Shift Left, Shift Right, AND, OR, XOR, Move Data , and etc. Which one of these operations would create Consciousness in a Computer? Or even which 4 operations executing simultaneously in the 4 cores would create Consciousness. To somehow try to say that a Brain and a Computer are computationally equivalent (both Universal) seems kind of ridiculous. They are Apples and Oranges. I would go so far as to say a Brain isn't even really a Computational Machine. It is something different. Brains create Computational Machines because Brains are not Computational Machines.

What do you mean by Hard Problem 2.0?

> I tried to give a general explanation that it is complicated, but the key is that its a combination of relevant parts. The explanation of function was in earlier posts, with more specific details, but you still ask "how", and I'm not sure what else there is to explain.
As much as I think about the Redness of Red, I still think it is explained by a combination of memory access.
So I guess we're at a stand-still anyway... — Tyler

But how can something like the experience of Red come from Memory Access? Memory Access is Neural Activity and other chemical changes in the Neurons. The experience of Red is a whole other Category of Phenomenon. I have given it my best shot and I agree that we are at a stand-still.

Another way of accounting conscience is the following: conscience is the vividness or "resolution" of mental states. It would be a property of mental states, different to redness, which is of objects. When I finish a summary of hard problem I will post here. Thank you for your responses — Belter

I think I understand what you are saying, I'll look for your summary. I also thank you for the discussion.

The property of redness is said to all that we call "red", both if it is real or fictional light. I follow the semantic rule of predicating a property of the thing that has it. — Belter

Then you will agree that Physical Red Light does not in fact have a Property of Redness. It is the Conscious Light in the Mind that has Redness as a Property. The Thing that has Redness is not the Physical Red Light Thing it is only the Conscious Thing.

So, you can say "What is that I am viewing?" "A red tomato"; "How are you viewed it?" "Very vividly". "With that are you viewing it?" "With my visual system (eyes->visual cortex)", and so. — Belter

See previous post.

There are several problems with Hard Problem. Another more is that we do not experience the Red as red (the Redness) but something as red. An object (real or fictional) can have the property of being viewed as red; in the same way that it has the property of being eaten by a black hole. The difference between another properties is that these kind of them needs another object to be corroborated empirically (an observer and a black hole respectively).
We call color to a property of objects, but not mental states. The properties of mental states could be "conscious", "vivid", etc., which would be a kind of "categories of experience". — Belter

Don't think about Objects think about the Red itself apart from any Object. Think about the Red experience. Objects are not Red. Objects can reflect Red Physical Light. But the Physical Red Light does not even have the property of Redness. The Redness is a conversion that the Brain does to let you Detect the Red Physical Light. What we See is the Conscious Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. We never actually See Physical Red Light. Physical Red Light doesn't look like anything. Physical Red light has the Property of Wavelength. Conscious Red Light has the Property of Redness.

I will try another way. How do you know that 1) "Red is a Conscious experience that exists in the Conscious Mind" is true; but 2) "a Conscious experience that exist in the Physical world" and "a Physical experience that exists in the Conscious Mind" are false? — Belter

If Red is a Physical World thing then what is it made out of? Is it made out of Energy? Is it made out of Matter? Is it some aspect of Space? Science does not know what it is. But we do know It exists as a Conscious experience. You can not explain it to anybody using Physical World language. It exists as a thing in itself that must be Explained. Nobody can answer question 2 because nobody knows what Consciousness is. We only know that it Exists.

The Principle does not "just say it is so". The CTD Principle does not mention consciousness at all. — tom

Ok. So if the Principle itself doesn't say anything about Consciousness how can it tell us that Consciousness is a Software feature? I guess I am missing your point.

The problem is the way it's been talked about...

Folk are saying "consciousness" but have no clue what it is. What other words do we use like that? The problem is dissolved by better language use. — creativesoul

Science talks about Dark Energy and Dark Matter like that, You do not get closer to understanding these things if you just use different language. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Consciousness are true unsolved mysteries of Science.

I thought is standard practice to deny the thing you can't explain, at least amon a sizeable minority of philosophers? — tom

"I thought" he had drifted from the topic.

Anyway, it is also standard practice to deny scientific results, like the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle (not to be confused with the Church-Turing Thesis) which tells us that consciousness is a software feature[/quote]
This Principle does not explain how or show that Consciousness is a Software feature. It just says it is so, and assumes it for the rest of the analysis. The original intention of the Thesis was just to say that Physical Systems can be simulated by software. The Principle included some Speculation that presupposed that Consciousness was just a Physical Process. No Explanation just Speculation. Could be true but any kind of proof is missing.

I think that you are in a kind of conceptual vortex. "Red" is a color... — Belter

You say "Red is a Color" dismissively as if saying that explains anything. Red is a Conscious experience that exists in the Conscious Mind. We experience the Red and recognize it as a Category of Experience that we call Color. I want to know how we See the Red as well as all the other Colors. It is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

It is worth noting that you've yet to have answered it. Odd. You talk about something as if it is a problem for my framework. I ask you what you're talking about, and you confirm the importance of the question and yet neglect to answer. — creativesoul

Here's what you have said:

Consciousness is a chimera, residue stemming from a gross misunderstanding of what it is to be human - as opposed to just being an animal. It is not an opposite situation. It is a comparitive one. The only difference is complexity of thought and belief.

Get thought and belief right, and the 'problem' between conscious experience and physiological sensory perception(brain) is solved(dissolved) as an unintended consequence. — creativesoul

What is the Red experience? What does it consist of? Apple pies consist of their ingredients. What are the ingredients of a Red experience? — creativesoul

I thought the discussion was about the Hard Problem being solved by your framework. The question is the Hard Problem. You think it's solved. I say nobody knows the answer yet. Of course I don't have an answer to the Hard Problem. You have to recognize that there at least is a Hard Problem.

The only thing left is Infinity.

You continue assuming that brain and mind are like two effects, that can "correlate" such as the increasing of educative and economical level. If you identify the two thing, we have not hard problem, only psychological problem. If you differentiate them, so conscience is "to know if you brain is or not lying you", that is, to differentiate reality from fiction, then the hard problem is the "transcendental" deduction problem. That is, following to Kant, we are conscience bears, but to be conscious and to know conscience are two different things. We can say that conscience is a condition of possibility of knowledge, in the sense that this requires a subject and its conscience to be produced. Then, we can not study conscience empirically because we presuppose it when try to know it. — Belter

So If I just say the Mind is the Brain that explains it all. Sorry it doesn't work for me. Even if Mind truly is the Brain then I would still need to know what the Conscious experience of Red is. What is the Red? Saying that the Red is Neurons is a Dodge with no explanation. The Red has to be explained.

What is the Red experience? What does it consist of? Apple pies consist of their ingredients. What are the ingredients of a Red experience? — creativesoul

Yes that is the question. If Red is something that exists in Physical Space then it has to be made out of Matter or Energy or some aspect of Space itself. But Red probably does not exist in Physical Space. We might say it exists in Mind Space or Conscious Space. But Red has a Property of Redness. Redness doesn't exist in Physical Space but only in Conscious Space. How do we explain that?

If you would like, you can explain to me what you mean by "Conscious Red experience", and perhaps I could translate into my framework afterwards. As it stands, I'm sure that whatever you say will consist of the aforementioned correlations. — creativesoul

We don't even need to consider Correlations. I'm talking about the Red experience itself. How does the Red experience happen in the Conscious Mind? What is it? What experiences it?

Thank You for that well written and lengthy reply. But I think a lot of people miss the Primacy of the Conscious experience. Think about the Redness of the Red. The Red is a thing in itself. It is a Conscious thing that exists only in our Conscious Minds. The Redness is a Property of a Conscious thing. Redness is not a Property of the Apple. All the Apple can do is reflect Red Physical Light that has Wavelength as a Property. The Physical Red Light does not even have Redness as a Property. The Conscious Red experience is a Surrogate for the Physical Red Light. The Physical red Light does not look like anything. In fact the Apple does not look like anything. You have never seen an Apple only the Conscious representation of it. We are so used to looking at our Conscious representations of things (because that's all we can do) that we think the representations are the way things look. The Conscious representations enable us to Detect what is out there in the World around us. The question then is and this is the Primary question: What are these Conscious representations and how do we experience them. Specifically what is the Red experience and how do we experience it? This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness and nobody has even a clue as to what the answer is.

I think that the book permit us to know a lot of not evident features of mind. The synchronicity in groups, circuits, etc., of specialized neurons when firing is the basic "explanation": "what the Virtual reality is, the Hard Problem".
In the book you can encounter one of the most advanced theories of mind (role of calcium channels, 40 Hz of frequency in the synchronized fired, etc.). I consider that the explanations of mind must be in this form or another one with the same (psychological) method. It is a "hard" problem such as "life" one is: we still not be capable of replicating artificially. But there are not a priori reasons for its skepticism. — Belter

Synchronicity in Groups, Circuits, Specialized Neural Firing, Calcium Channels, 40 Hz synchronized Firing, etc. all involve Neural Activity of one sort or another. All these things are related to the Easy Problem. None of these solve the Hard Problem. None of these explains what the Conscious experience of Red could be. So, even if all these Neural things have to happen for me to experience the color Red, these are just Neural Correlates of experiencing the color Red. The fact that these things happen does not get us any closer to solving the Hard Problem. The fact that these things happen does not explain the Red experience. We have known for a hundred years that Neural Activity is related to Conscious experience but we are no closer today in understanding how the Conscious experience happens when the Neural Activity happens.

We can not know a priori if X is a physical red object or a mental red one. — Belter

But you never see the actual Physical Red object even when you are looking right at it. You are always only Seeing the Mental, or Conscious, Surrogate of the Physical Red object. The Redness of the Red exists only in the Conscious World, or as I like to say it exists only in Conscious Space.

The explanatory gap is jumped everyday by psychological researchers. I recommended you for example, "I of the vortex" if you want to know this "mysterious" problem of how brain is used for individuals to think — Belter

The book says things like there is a Virtual Reality generated by the Mind. it assumes this Virtual Reality without explaining what it actually is. You can speculate about a Virtual Reality but it is in the long run just speculation. There are no Explanations of what the Virtual Reality is. Explaining exactly what the Virtual reality is, is the Hard Problem.

It is in my view, the question is bad formulated. It is a scientific question the "how" the knife cuts the onion: it simply "cuts" it, separating it in different parts. If you want continue asking when you assume that 2 happens by 1 you only will obtain biological details: "How people think with the brain?" is responded "By circuits, cores, modules, for the different competences, faculties etc.". But even when we have not still an advanced theory of mind (neuroscience is very young) it does not mean that it is another problem that a psychological one. — Belter

I guess we will have to disagree on the Hard Problem. I have given it my best shot and have obviously failed to convince you.

I do not agree it. Mind world is part of the physical world, referred to certain abilities of individuals, and realized by brains. I am not a dualist, and the hard problem presupposes it, but not justify it. — Belter

Even if Mind World is part of Physical World there has to be an explanation for Conscious experience. You cannot say the Mind (Conscious) World is all just part of the Physical World and That Explains It. That does not explain anything. You must Explain not just Say. The Hard Problem does not presuppose Dualism. The solution to the Hard Problem could very well be that Consciousness is all Physical. But Science has not shown that yet. The Hard Problem is alive and well whether you are a Dualist or a Physicalist.

The hard problem introduce a new additional problem that in my view does not exist. When Red-Neurons are firing in X, the conscious experience of Red happen in X (X experiences a qualia). — Belter

You make this statement while saying there is no Problem. Here's the Problem .. Given:

1) Red-Neurons are firing in X
2) Conscious experience of Red happen in X

How does 2 happen when 1 happens? I think your main argument is that the Hard problem does not exist because of an improper use of language when asking this question. You might be correct but you have not explained what exactly is the problem with the question.

For now I see the question as a huge Problem. It is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. It is the Explanatory Gap on full display. Nobody knows how this works.

The redness is a property of the some objects, which has the property of being view as red (at least for humans), so redness perception is which "exists" in the mind world. This is the "problem of universals". It is a nonsense to say: "My viewing of this tomato is red". Instead, we say "This tomato (as I view it) is red". As pragmatists philosopher have suggested, many (if not all) philosophical problems are originated by a confused use of language. — Belter

I agree with this. But where does this leave us? If you agree that there is a separate Mind World where Conscious experience exists then you must agree that there is a Hard Problem of Consciousness. I can illustrate the Problem by asking the question ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens in the Brain (Physical World)
2) A Conscious Red experience happens in the Mind World

There is definitely Correlation between 1 and 2, but how does 2 happen when 1 happens? If the language is wrong with this question then I don't understand what's wrong.

Maybe I'm not understand what you mean by this ^. What is this to you? — MiloL

It is a slightly internally redundant statement that I use to get people to concentrate on the Conscious experience itself. Just think about Red.

There is no such thing as some deep insight into consciousness. It's nothing more than a bunch of different notions throughout human history based upon the idea that humans, and thus human minds were somehow different than animal minds in some special kind of way. There's nothing special about it. It's a matter of complexity, and that's it.

All thought. All belief. All statements. All meaning. All of these things consist entirely of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the agent(creature) itself. The only difference is in the complexity of the correlations. — creativesoul

I think most people recognize that animals probably have some kind of Conscious existence and experience similar to what humans have. So how would you explain the Conscious Red experience using your Correlations drawn between 'Objects' of physiological sensory perception ... proposition?

But is Red even Red? How would your Redness of the Red experience change if no one taught you the word red? Does you theory account for the variety of ways one might learn to interpret all the photons and wave length considerations? — MiloL

Doesn't matter what I call the Red experience. The red experience is still an experience of Redness. The Redness of the Red is beyond any words that you can say to interpret it. I'm not sure what your last question is asking.

What, do you want a thesis? Not going to happen.

I'm just nudging you in the right direction.

It's not a matter of monism vs. dualism. It's a matter of neither being adequate. It's a matter of how it's been talked about. Change the path and you'll end up in a different place.

Start by geting thought and belief right... ontologically, I mean. All thought and belief consists entirely of correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the creature itself(it's state of 'mind'; mental state).

"Consciousness" is nothing more than a namesake given to various forms of complex thought and belief and/or it's effects/affects. — creativesoul

When you say this you imply that you have some deep insight into Consciousness. You very well might be right. But you have to provide us with better explanations than that we have to get our Thinking Right. A Thesis is not necessary but a Paragraph would be helpful.

It is the Redness of the Red experience that we are trying to explain. Regardless of how Complicated the Neural Activity is, and regardless of how much Memory is accessed how do those Brain events produce the Redness of a Red experience? More to the point what is the Redness of the Red experience? How do we See it when the Brain events happen? Think about the absolute inexplicable nature of the Redness itself. Redness is a Property of the red Conscious experience. Redness is not a Property of Red Physical Light. Red Physical Light has Wavelength as a Property. The Red Conscious experience is a Surrogate for the Red Physical Light. Think about the Redness of Red. The more you think about Redness the more you can understand that it is not even something that exists in the Physical World. It exists in your Conscious Mind World. This is just the way it is and even the best Minds in Science have zero insight into what the Redness is.

How does 1 produce 2?

Think about the Redness of a Red experience. Think about Neurons firing. How on Earth do think that these are not two different categories of Phenomenon? — SteveKlinko> 1 produces 2 by a complex but coordinated combination producing an intricate outcome.
I think they are the same category because it seems logical that the 1 process (of neural activity) is the functional explanation of the other (Redness of Red).

By my theory, I might say, I use consciousness to access memories of the concepts relative to the explanation, simultaneously to accessing new memories of incoming sensory input of the image of red.
When I look at and think about red, I also think about the function of my eye measuring the light wave-lengths of red, and my neural activity coding it and saving it as a memory. So the appearance of red, is just the interpretation of the coding of wave-length measurements. — Tyler

All you just said is that it is Complicated and involves Memory and some kind of Interpretations. Maybe this is all true but there is no explanation in what you say.

I believe this means the Mechanism is the Cause. Of course this is all semantics. — SteveKlinko
It is not semantic in my opinion. Smoking causes cancer, but the mechanism of the cancer is other thing than to smoke. — Belter

Your Smoking analogy has added a step in front of the problem. Smoking could be analogous to Looking at something Red. If I said that Looking at something Red causes the Red experience then that would be the same as saying Smoking causes cancer. Then you could say that Looking does not cause the Red experience but that there is some deeper Mechanism involving Neurons that is the cause. With the Consciousness problem we are already deep into the problem from the start. The analogous starting point in the Smoking analogy would be to ask the question how does Tar and Nicotine cause Cancer? It is Semantics.

I doubt it but who knows? If we knew how maybe we could ask the Conscious Mind, if there is one, that is connected to the camera if it had a Red experience.However, I do know that when Red Neurons fire there is a Red experience for Humans. — SteveKlinko
I think it's jumping the shark to entertain the idea that a CCD possesses qualia. Asking the conscious mind attached to the CCD would be no more useful than asking the conscious mind attached to a retina.

Yes, we get it, humans have qualia, but if "red neurones" cause qualia in humans, then why don't they in animals, or robots — tom

Ok I was just playing along with you in answering the question the way I did. The reality is that we don't know anything about how our own Conscious experience of Red happens. We need to figure that out first before we can ask questions about CCDs.

Consciousness is a chimera, residue stemming from a gross misunderstanding of what it is to be human - as opposed to just being an animal. It is not an opposite situation. It is a comparitive one. The only difference is complexity of thought and belief.

Get thought and belief right, and the 'problem' between conscious experience and physiological sensory perception(brain) is solved(dissolved) as an unintended consequence — creativesoul

Explain to us what we have to do with our Thoughts and Beliefs to solve the Problem (I'm assuming the Hard Problem).

Causes are the "why" something happens and mechanism are the "how" — Belter

I think it would be proper grammar to say that I want to know the Mechanism that Causes the Conscious Red experience to happen. I believe this means the Mechanism is the Cause. Of course this is all semantics.

When the red sensors in a CCD fire, will there be red experience? — tom

I doubt it but who knows? If we knew how maybe we could ask the Conscious Mind, if there is one, that is connected to the camera if it had a Red experience.However, I do know that when Red Neurons fire there is a Red experience for Humans.

I think that 1) is not the cause of 2) but its biological mechanism.
Causes of Red experience are related with seeing a red objetc, to be alucinating with it, etc. — Belter

There may be multiple reasons why the Red experience happens but with a normal Human being, if Red Neurons fire there will be a Red experience. Seems to me a Biological Mechanism is a cause. I just want to know what the Biological Mechanism is that accomplishes this.

Science has made tremendous progress with regard to measuring, scanning, probing, mapping, and understanding the Brain. But that all goes to solving the Easy Problem of Consciousness. Science has not even made an attempt to solve the Hard Problem because they don't even know where to start. Nobody knows where to start. People confuse the act of solving the Easy Problem with solving the Hard Problem. There is an expectation that when the Brain is completely mapped and totally understood that the Hard Problem will magically be solved. This is a false expectation if you truly understand the Hard Problem.

I like to take one particular aspect of Conscious experience and stick with it. I like to study the experience of the color Red. We know that there is specific Neural Activity happening when there is a Conscious Red experience. All I ever ask is, given the knowledge we have about the Red Neural Activity, how on Earth do we have that Conscious Red experience? The Red Neural Activity is the Easy Problem. How we have a Red Conscious experience is the Hard Problem.

If you think about the Red experience itself you will get closer to understanding the Hard Problem. The Redness of the Red exists only as a Conscious experience. The Redness is a Property of a Conscious experience. Imagine that, a Conscious experience has a Property. This means that the Redness is a thing in itself that exists somehow in our Conscious Minds. There is no Redness in the Physical world. What is Redness made out of? Is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? is it some aspect of Space? It is some aspect of the Conscious Mind. Science can not explain the Red experience that we have. There is zero progress toward understanding it. The Hard Problem in this case can be stated as a question: What is the Conscious Red experience? Get away from the Neurons and think about Conscious experience itself.