I think the question that concludes the post operates on a faulty premise. To "deprive" the "machines" presupposes that the machines have the dignity that human persons have. But this is untrue.

Also the post assumes a sort of dualism: that there is a difference between the CM and the PM. But my understanding is that most scientists reject that view and think that the so-called CM is itself the functioning of the PM. Therefore since dualism is not accepted among scientists, the question whether we ought to pursue the fusion of CM and and machines does not even arise. Rather the question becomes whether scientific technology will reach the point where the brain can be artificially replicated in machines. But this is doubtful since the brain is unique and very complex — Brian A

True the Machine will not have the same dignity as a Human until it has Consciousness. I certainly am proposing a type of Dualism and the Inter Mind Model actually proposes a Triplistic model of the Mind..

Humans will never completely comprehend 4D Space. We can only look at projections, slices and other 3D visualization techniques. We can never really get out of our 3D prison. Take a look at this link for some further thoughts. http://bit.ly/2frZJST

It is kind of restrictive. The post is still here so I think I'll take the next step and say to everyone: Try Googling something that rhymes with "The Winter Mind".

People have complained about the quantity of Acronyms. Just want to mention that there is now an easier to read version of this paper on a website that I can't mention without getting this post deleted. Might try Googling something. The website is easier to read because the Acronyms have Mouse hover over popup text boxes that show the full text of any Acronym as you read the paper.

I like to trace the experience of Color from the Source to the Experience. Electromagnetic waves associated with Red hit the Retina. At the instant the Retina is activated there are no Electromagnetic waves anymore. All we now have is a cascade of Neural firings traveling through to the Visual Cortex in the back of the Brain. Some Neurons in the Visual Cortex that fire for Red will fire. We know that when these Red Neurons fire that we will have a Red experience. No one has discovered how this happens yet. This is the Hard Problem of Conscious Perception. This is where we are in our understanding. So I vote for #4.

↪SteveKlinko If there are no waves in your mind, then how is it that you can say "I'm thinking of waves."? Again, I'm not saying that there are actual waves in your head. I'm saying that whatever it is that you think takes the form of the qualia that you experience of the world. To say that you can think of anything is to say that your thoughts take some form for you to even be aware that you are thinking. What form do they take? — Harry Hindu

Something like the experience of Red is an experience. It is not a thought. There's no meaning to it. You can't argue with it. Red is a Conscious thing that we use as data input to our Conscious Mind processors.

I deal with causes and effects. I can understand how Electromagnetic Waves hitting the Retina cause Neural Activity. I can understand that the experience of Red is caused by Neural Activity. That step in between Neural Activity and the experience of Red is the unknown part. It just is an unknown at this point in our understanding. We will probably figure it out someday.

So, if these waves in your mind have a color, then if direct realism is true, then the waves out there have color and look like the waves in your mind too, right — Harry Hindu

There are no Waves in my Mind. The Waves are in the External World. Just because I understand the Waves doesn't mean they are in my Mind. The Waves are one thing, the resultant Neural Activity is another thing, and the Red experience is but yet another thing. These are all separate things that are correlated with each other. One causes the other in a chain of causation and this is why they seem correlated.

It sounds like you're just presuming that some sort of separate entity exists apart from the brain and it's goings on which has something to do with human consciousness. I contend that the human brain contains the entirety of whatever human consciousness really is.

It's possible that some extra-dimensional plane contains the human consciousness, but we've not much reason to presume this is the case — VagabondSpectre

The short answer is that it has not been found in the Brain so far and we have been trying to find it in the Brain for a long time now. It just does not seem to be happening. I think it's time to think outside the box. Also, the absolutely odd and special nature of something like the experience of Red screams out for new explanations. Think of the Red of Red. I have come to the conclusion that Red is something completely different than anything in the Physical world.

Relatively simple and small organisms can see, recall, so it should be fairly clear that the conscious awareness that is the seeing doesn't require "a big process in the Brain function".

Whatever is left to explain on how seeing arises from biochemistry is not the big explanatory gap that arises from assuming dualism or representational perception, because a direct realist does not make the latter assumptions. — jkop

We don't know what any other organism sees or does not see. But if it is a Conscious type of seeing then there is a Big Explanatory Gap that needs to be filled even if the organism has a more simple Brain.

Ok forget Dualism, how exactly does seeing arise from biochemistry?

How is there any explanatory gap at all, much less a big one, if neural activity IS the model? Again, all you see is a brain, or a model of the brain on a computer screen with different colors representing certain activity in the brain. Just as the model on the computer screen isn't the real brain, the brain you look at when a doctor opens up someone's head is just a visual model of someone's neural activity. — Harry Hindu

Let's just talk about the experience of the color Red. Electromagnetic waves in the external Physical World are an oscillating Electric and Magnetic phenomenon. A changing Electric field causes the Magnetic field and a changing Magnetic field causes the Electric field. This mutual interaction of the two types of fields is how the wave propagates. Now think about the Red experience. The Red experience in and of itself has nothing to do with the Electromagnetic phenomenon. There is no sense of any of the actual properties of Red Electromagnetic waves in the Red experience. There is no sense of an oscillatory phenomenon in the experience of Red. The Red experience is a whole different Kind of thing than Red Electromagnetic waves. So the Red experience is something that we see in place of actually seeing Red Electromagnetic waves.

Now the next step is to talk about the Neural Activity that occurs when Red Electromagnetic waves hit the Retina. We know that certain Neurons fire when Red Electromagnetic waves hit the Retina. But Neurons firing is not the Experience of Red. The experience of Red is a whole different thing than Neurons firing. So the Red experience is something that we see in place of actually sensing Neural Activity. That's where the Explanatory Gap comes in and that is the Hard problem of Consciousness.

Isn't it possible that the Conscious Mind grows along with the Neurons in the Brain and is a separate thing from the Neurons? — SteveKlinko
Yes and no.

The brain is the seat of consciousness. If we meddle with the brain, the consciousness gets meddled with. If the brain gets destroyed, as far as we know the consciousness gets destroyed.

A good analogy here is the difference between computer software and computer hardware:

The hardware houses data and provides physical connect-ability between bits of data.

The software is data contained within the neurons, but more importantly it is the complex way in which individual bits of data connect together which produces a higher function.

The software is dependent upon the hardware (and constrained by it), but is much greater (more complex) than merely the sum of it's parts (it's hardware and also it's bits). There are 100 billion neurons in the human brain, but there are 1000 trillion connections between neurons in the human brain. It is these connections which seems to most plausibly represent the base unit of human cognition.

Like a dance (consciousness), it cannot be defined only by the nature of the dancers (the hardware of the brain), it must also be defined by their movements, including the spaces in-between them. — VagabondSpectre

I agree that the Brain has a type of Software and a type of Hardware. But from my point of view none of that has to actually be the Conscious Mind. A Conscious Mind is connected to all that, but does not have to actually be that. A Computer has Hardware and Software but will not be Conscious because it is not connected to a Conscious Mind as far as anyone can know. Certainly a Computer does not have Conscious Volition. The Hardware and Software of a Brain probably do not have Conscious Volition. The Conscious Mind provides the Conscious Volition.

It is called 'direct' because there is nothing by way of which the objects are seen, neither a process nor a mechanism, so there are no such things to explain.

The seeing, however, is a causation of biochemical processes in the brain, and that's the short explanation of how the capacity to see works. Its detailed explanation is the subject for empirical research. — jkop

It seems like you have a big process in the Brain function. And it seems like you say empirical research will be needed. Sorry if I am still not quite following because it seems like you say the empirical research is going to provide an explanation some day.

No the hard problem has not been solved. Our best guess is that the consciousness is a kind of reflection/illusion produced by matter in the brain.

We cannot identify the neurons of consciousness because we're pretty sure that consciousness has something to do with the way neurons interact with each-other rather than a property of individual neurons.

Consciousness is like a dance in this sense. When the dancers (neurons) are motionless, there is no consciousness. It rises and falls with activity the between them. — VagabondSpectre

Isn't it possible that the Conscious Mind grows along with the Neurons in the Brain and is a separate thing from the Neurons? The only thing we know how to measure is Neural Activity. If the Conscious Mind is separate from the Brain then we would have to somehow directly measure Consciousness to prove that it truly does rise and fall with the Neural Activity in the Brain. I think it is possible that we might not know what the Conscious Mind does during Neural suppression as in with anesthesia. After the fact testimonials are not really valid because it depends on Memories that are part of the Neural side of things. The Conscious Mind has no memory in and of itself. The Conscious Mind uses the Brains memory to function in the Physical World. The Conscious Mind might be a stranger thing than people think it is. I think the Conscious Mind Is the place where Conscious Experience happens. I always go back to the experience of the color Red. How can that be in the Physical Neurons of the Brain? It is a pure experiential thing.

When the appearance that you see is the external object that you see there is no gap to explain — jkop

Then I would want to know what the mechanism or process is that facilitates this Direct Seeing of objects. If you can not show me a convincing mechanism or process then that is a big Gap in understanding. You can't just say it's true without an explanation.

So it would seem like it is well within the jurisdiction of Physics to describe Consciousness some day . — SteveKlinko
But, it's a huge and unresolved argument. It's not as if physicists have agreed on what it means - they don't agree at all. The existence of 'the observer effect' is a great unresolved mystery. Here is an essay on it. — Wayfarer

Good essay. I think that Quantum Mechanics could be the key to understanding Consciousness. The effect of Consciousness has always been part of some interpretations of QM theory.

It's time to start thinking in different ways. — SteveKlinko
Right, so why are you stuck in dualism?

Direct realism is a better assumption as defended by Searle, or Putnam.

Perception has no interface between the brain's causation of becoming aware of what you see, and the causal chain to what you become aware of; the latter sets the conditions for what you will perceive.

The visual system does not produce a "result" that would be "looked" at by some inner homunculus. Instead it produces the looking-part of the experience, whereas the present features of the external object sets the conditions of what the object-part of the experience will appear like. For example, if a door is open, then it will be an open door that you see. Looking at some result of your own brain events would amount to blindness or hallucination — jkop

The main problem with Direct Realism is that there never is any explanation of how we directly experience things. Even if Direct Realism is true there is a Huge Explanatory Gap between saying we Directly Experience the world and explaining how that happens.

The implication of indirect realism is that what we experience is a model of the world, not the world as it is. This means that when we look at someone's brain, the brain we experience is a visual model, not the the way it really is. We too often think of it as the other way around - that what we see is real, and then we run into the problem of how the brain generates the model we experience. If we were to think of it in reverse - that what is real is "out there", and "in here" is the model, then we can understand the reason why we can't experience someone else's experiences - or mental activity. The brain that we see is a model of their mental activity that is happening "out there" in the way that it does whether or not someone is looking at it or not. You might say that the brain we experience visually is the model of all of their mental activity, including their conscious experience. — Harry Hindu

But when you say Visual Model what is that? I want to know what the Model is. If you say the Model is just Neural Activity then I think there is a big Explanatory Gap in going from Neural Activity to the Conscious Experience. Measuring the Neural Activity is the David Chalmers Easy Problem of Consciousness but understanding how the Visual Experience happens as a result of the Neural Activity is the David Chalmers Hard Problem of Consciousness. I don't believe the Hard problem has been solved yet.

Regardless of whether we call it an organ or inner light, what signals does it use? If it is using the same signals as the visual system, then whence the addition of "inner light" that is supposedly "looking" at the alleged construction or "result" of the visual system? — jkop

The Conscious Mind is definitely using the same Physical Signals as the Visual System. The Inner Light (Conscious Light) is correlated with these Signals. It still defies Physical explanation what the Conscious Light is. It can not be found in the Physical Mind (Brain) yet. We have been waiting too long for the Physical explanation of Consciousness. It's time to start thinking in different ways. The Conscious Space and the Conscious Mind concepts are primarily thought experiments to see if there might be some new way of approaching the problem.

The visual system uses Nerve signals from the Retina to construct the scene we are looking at with our own internal Conscious Light. — SteveKlinko
What organ is that? What signals would it use? — jkop

Saying, What Organ is that, is just asking the basic question how does Consciousness work. We don't know yet. There's probably no Physical type of Organ involved.

All this means is that physics hasn't described consciousness — Harry Hindu
It's not in the business of trying to 'describe consciousness'. What it describes is the motion of objects. It's amazing the number of people who don't seem to get that — Wayfarer

Certainly Quantum Physic has talked about the effect of Consciousness on results of certain experiments. So it would seem like it is well within the jurisdiction of Physics to describe Consciousness some day .

That's ok if you don't like how I say it. Can't help it that's how I talk. I didn't say that that's all we are is Conscious. I just said Conscious Life Forms Like us are Physical Things and later I say how we also have a Conscious aspect. You might not like Dualism but that's all I'm talking about here. No need to invalidate everything because of a simple semantic problem you see in the whole thing.

↪Wayfarer What about a life-form that isn't conscious, like a starfish, that has eyes, but no central nervous system with a brain?

But what does it really mean to See? — SteveKlinko

What it means to see is that you are using light as a source of information about the world. We know this is true because we don't have any information about the world when there is no light. Actually, the only information we have is that there is no light symbolized by our visual field covered in black. — Harry Hindu

Maybe I should have simply asked How do we See?, not What does it Mean to See?

But what does it really mean to See? A conscious life form is first of all a Physical Thing — SteveKlinko
Actually, that is not so. 'A conscious life-form ' is a subject, in our case - we assimilate the information from an object, but we also interpret it and integrate it into our already-existing knowledge. In other words, we judge its meaning. Physical things don't do that. The assertion simply assumes 'physicalism' is the case. — Wayfarer

First of all Conscious Life Forms like us are Physical Things. That's just a fact. I say First Of All with the implication that there is a Second of All at least here. I go on to talk about the Conscious aspect of the whole thing.

As soon as the Physical Light hits the Retina it is turned into something else as it transmitted to the Cortex. It is now Nerve Impulses and Nerve Firings. — SteveKlinko

Sure, the light hits the retina and thereby starts a causal chain of biochemical reactions. But you say more: that the light would be turned into "something else", and "transmitted" to the cortex. :-} — jkop

The next sentence says It is now Nerve Impulses and Nerve Firings. That's the something else.

Is it physically possible even for nerves and neurons to transmit "something..." (what?) ..as if the cortex would be a TV?

I don't think it is necessary for an observer's visual system to transmit anything when there is the presence of an object and light that reflects its present features. Only the latter are necessary for the visual system to see something. — jkop

It is the basic function of Nerves to transmit something. I'm not sure what your question is here. The primary Visual Cortex really is like a TV screen in that there is a topological copy of patterns on the Retina reproduced on the Cortex. The Cortical version is however a highly warped version of what's on the Retina. This pattern information is Transmitted over Nerve pathways.

I don't think it is necessary for an observer's visual system to transmit anything when there is the presence of an object and light that reflects its present features. Only the latter are necessary for the visual system to see something — jkop

I don't know if it's necessary or not but your visual system is doing that.

If we only see our own internal lights, then how could they ever be correlated to something external that we supposedly don't see? It seems inconsistent. — jkop

The visual system uses Nerve signals from the Retina to construct the scene we are looking at with our own internal Conscious Light. The Light scene you see is correlated to the external scene when we are awake. The Light scene you see when you are Dreaming is made out of the same Conscious Light stuff as the Light scene when you are awake but it is not correlated to any external scene. How the Visual system creates the Conscious Light scene is the David Chalmers Hard Problem of Consciousness as described in The Conscious Mind. The lack of understanding of how the Conscious Experience occurs is the Explanatory Gap as proposed by Joseph Levine in Materialism and Qualia. Maybe you are more familiar with the term Qualia in which case when I say Conscious Light it is the same as the Light Qualia. The fact that we don't know how this works yet is the 800 pound Gorilla in the Consciousness room.

If you see the colour directly, then there is no gap to explain. The colour experience is partly set by the optics, and partly by your background capacities and habits which enable you to see it. — jkop

As soon as the Physical Light hits the Retina it is turned into something else as it transmitted to the Cortex. It is now Nerve Impulses and Nerve Firings. I think it's pretty well established that there is no Visual Experience without Cortical involvement. So what we see is the result of Neurons Firing. We don't Experience the Physical Light directly. If you rub your eye you can see Lights.because you are stimulating Neural Firings. There is no Physical Light involved in that. Also, where does all that Light come from in your Dreams? How about after Images where you continue to see remnants of the scene you were looking at? These Lights are all internal Lights that we have in our Conscious Minds. Bottom line is that we Experience Light all the time when there is no Light there. And when we are awake the situation is the same, we are seeing our own internal Lights but now the Conscious Light we experience is correlated with external scenes you are looking at.

I also find this thinking too reductionist. While I understand the inclination to seek such a hypothesis scientifically, it does nothing at all to resolve the actual problems of conceptuality, and so it actually does science a disservice. Personally I find the issue of individual consciousness itself turns into a solipsistic red herring. Most of the ideas I know are not my own, but other peoples', so by the same extrapolation you refer to, I don't feel that beliefs based upon them are my own beliefs either, but rather just inserted into me, like fake limbs, by other people. I have been led to understand that is a very rare experience, but that is how I feel about them, and I feel if all the things I had learned from other people did not exist, but I had some kind of 'self consciousness' regardless, it would probably be on the level of awareness of a pet cat. — ernestm

Yes, original ideas are hard to come by. But your Conscious Experience of Red is your own personal Experience. I'm only saying that my interest is in exploring exactly how do we experience Red. I think it's a good starter goal. But of course what I'm really after is the Conscious Experience of Light in general. I am interested in all the Conscious Sensory Experiences that we have. So also Sound, Taste, Smell, and Touch. But Light is the most interesting to me with Sound a close second. Thanks for the style encouragement.

I am guided by 20 years of reading about as many aspects of Consciousness as I could find. I have studied Brain Physiology and Philosophy related to Consciousness in my own Hobbyist kind of way. I decided that the Human experience of Red was a good first thing to study. It is something that should lend itself to Engineering analysis. I found that Science has hit a brick wall in that they cannot explain the Conscious Experience of Red. They are good at measuring Neural Activity in the Brain. But they really don't know where to go after that. In between Neurons firing in the Brain to the Experience of Red there is a huge Explanatory Gap as suggested by Joseph Levine in Materialism and Qualia. Philosophers have hit a similar brick wall and have come up with things like the Easy Problem and the Hard Problem of Consciousness.by David Chalmers. Also another good concept is the Neural Correlates of Consciousness proposition in The Quest for Consciousness by Christoff Koch.

Science is able to measure the Neural Correlates of Consciousness and this is the Easy Problem of Consciousness. Not to say that this is actually Easy but it seems to be Easy compared to the Hard Problem of Consciousness. All we know for the Experience of Red is 1) Neurons fire in particular places in the Brain, 2) We have an Experience of Red in our Conscious Minds. Number 1 is the Easy Problem and number 2 is the Hard Problem. The problem with number 2 is that we say we have a Red Experience but we don't take it to the next step and ask Where Is That Experience Happening? Materialists will say it's in the Brain without any real explanation of that. It is usually just a hope or a belief that it is in the Brain because they can never explain it. I have sympathy for that because everything else we know of has Materialist explanations. But I think we have come to the point where just for the sake of discussion we need to propose a new Conscious Space concept to talk about our Conscious Experiences. It serves to separate out and emphasize the truly odd character of Conscious Experience compared to what we know about the Physical World. Consciousness is in a World of its own. But ironically it is the only way we can know about the external World.

If the experience of Red can not be found in the only things we know, Matter, Energy. and Space then speculating that there must be some other Thing out there is a completely logical step in the analysis. If you are a Materialist then of course you wont like that. If you think my Capitalizations are Random then you are not really reading what I say. It is my style and I will authoritatively say I'm not going to stop doing that.