This thread was one which I created several months ago, so I am trying to tune into it again. That may even be relevant to the issue because specific thoughts arise at times and states of consciousness. So much may be about specific moments, and mindfulness of this. It may be that thoughts arise almost spontaneously at times, but they are probably connected to aspects of awareness which are form of subtext to the most conscious aspects of awareness. In other words, some thoughts may arise out of the blue, but they may be aspects of subliminal awareness, which have not been expressed, or formulated into words, previously.

It was only after a few eye problems that I became aware that the retina is actually part of the brain. It may play more of a significant role in consciousness than many realise. Some descriptions of sensory perception make vision, hearing and other aspects of perception, including touch appear as if they are add on features, but it may be they are the key aspects of consciousness. In connection with your post about 'images' it could be asked what are images, and whether images are simply that? The nervous system may be very complex.

Interesting, and it may be that we are 'zombies' or
'robots' I have read some of the writers, but not all,but do wonder if there are certain criteria of self awareness, and to what extent this may be established. I am not wishing to collapse the problem to that of relativism, but am wondering how the nature of thoughts can be critiqued. How do we evaluate thoughts and their significance?

It could be asked where in the mind do thoughts come and how much is a posteroi or a priori. Each of us lives in a world of subjective experience, based on social meanings and logic, and thoughts may come somewhere in between. Plato spoke of the Forms outside of us and current perspectives in cognitive psychology speak of the way human beings are hardwired, which may include some innate aspects of human nature, as well as human nature. But, in understanding thoughts it may be about trying to put together the various sources which come into play in understanding the divergent sources of the streams of thought processes.

Yes, I have been wondering about where dreaming and hallucinations are placed within qualia. This shows the way in which subjective consciousness takes on the role of distorting and giving an 'alternative' take on 'reality'. I once had a thread on dreams and this raised questions about the subconscious aspects of mental processing.

However, hallucinations are particularly interesting because so many people, especially in the form of -psychosis,'. It would appear that the mind is capable of playing tricks in distorting perception in waking consciousness at times. There is also the whole realm of illusions of perception, such as those described by Oliver Sacks. It is possible to even ask what are illusions? Part of thinking about illusions and delusions may come down to validation and falsification through understanding shared experiences of others. If I am seeing an alien being in a room and I am aware that I am the only one who can see the alien, this may give rise to my perception being a hallucination.

It is interesting to see this thread pop up suddenly and it probably is connected to qualia. The idea of thoughts as 'shadows of our feelings' of Nietzsche is interesting here. I also wonder where dreams fit into this because they may be shadows of thoughts and feelings.

I have been looking at so much activity on this thread, and trying to read it. The whole question of qualia is so complex. On the personal level, I wonder how much comes down to perception in the arts. Each of us may draw or paint a different impression of a person or an object. Part of this may come down to skill in the rendering of likenesses. However, it may also come down to the unique aspects of perception. For example, it may be that the appeal of Seurat or Van Gogh may be in connection with the way in which such artists are able to take viewers into specific and unique ways of seeing.

I am really wondering what comes next. In England, where I am, it still the situation of many aspects of social activities not returning to normal. At the moment, there is the situation of yet another new variant. Many people have taken 3 vaccines and there are still fears of many dying. It is so complex, but the whole situation and the spectrum of fear and so many restrictions is making life so difficult for many and, no one seems to know what, or how many new variants are in our midst.

I am trying to keep positive but it is so difficult because by the February it will be 2 years of coping with the pandemic and, how for many, it is has turned life upside down.

Helen Keller was such an interesting example of many issues which defy conventional understanding of the nature of perception, its limitations and the furthest scope of possibilities. It may be that so many of what is taken for granted is the mere basics, and writers like Oliver Sacks may depict more unusual feats of the human mind and perception.

Cameras are interesting as a way of captivating pictures and it may be that the whole process of recording of images and sounds is important here. It may be important in understanding the way in which ideas and images are stored and transmitted as aspects of what may be understood as 'mind', and human experiences , and this may have some significance in what may be the inbetween area, referred to in the idea of 'qualia'.

Yes, the idea of the retina may be extremely important in the understanding of brain processes. I had never thought about it all until I was told that I had some underlying retinal abnormalities and read about how the retina is part of the brain. This lead me to wonder to what extent is the whole process of thinking and interpretation of experiences linked to the process of perception. It may be asked to what extent do the aspects of sensory awareness are influenced by cognitive aspects of understanding, or vice versa?

I am sure that my question is the most stupid and basic philosophy question ever asked but it, can be asked.What is a brain, as an aspect of processing reality and perception?

I wonder so much about the retina and the brain in the whole process of perception. Personally, I have been to eye clinics, with a variety of eye problems and some unusual aspects showing up in eye scans. This was one of the underlying factors which lead me to consider the nature of perception and its physical basis. The eyes and the brain may say so much about the process of perception, including aspects of psychology and philosophy.

I am reading and thinking about the many replies on the thread, but a little perplexed as there are many responses and it is such a complex area of philosophy. The whole nature of perception in thinking about 'reality', and human experiences raises so much questioning about how human understanding goes, in understanding of what may be perceived and what may be the basis of underlying aspects of 'reality'.

I may be wrong in my understanding of qualia, but I have understood it to be more about questions arising about perception and objectivity. For example, does each person experience colours identically, or what lies beyond subjective perception, and the nature of 'objective' aspects which are underlying individual human experiences. I guess that shared experience does point to the possibility that there may be some metaphysics behind human experiences.

I probably came with some kind of bias against Dennett, but I am trying to read his ideas and see strengths as well as weaknesses. Part of the problem for me in evaluating his ideas may be seeing how his ideas developed over time, rather than in one book. Somehow, I have often thought that he was the thinker who suggested that consciousness was an illusion, but having made half way through, 'Consciousness Explained', it seems here that he regarded consciousness as an aspect of the inner life of human beings. But, I probably need to finish the book in order to evaluate, and look at some further developments of his ideas.

The problem may be that in philosophy there are so many 'bogeymen' and it is the point where it is worth weeding through the 'trash' and getting to the important parts. Of course, each person has to decide this individually, but it may be that looking at certain concepts, like 'qualia', may be important in the process of demystifying areas explored by academic philosophers.

I am not really a big fan of Dennett. It was just that I came across his book, 'Consciousness Explained' (1991) while I was out and about today. I was more impressed by his writings than I expected I would be. Of course, he is a big name in philosophy, but I have wondered about the notion of 'qualia' for several months, so I thought it worth raising for critical thinking on a forum. It may be useful for many if the idea, and the perspective of Dennett, is looked at ans explored critically.

I definitely find that qualia is an aspect which is used to explain aspects of reality which cannot be explained easily by idealism, realism or materialism. So, when you ask what qualia means to me, it probably comes down to a complex area between metaphysics and phenomenology. It is a difficult, fuzzy area, but I do wonder if the term 'qualia' is used at times as a way of avoiding some of the most difficult questions in philosophy.

I do indeed wonder if 'qualia' is 'a preserve ' of certain academics'. It is simply that on a daily basis of reading ideas in philosophy, I keep coming across the idea, and wondering what it may fuzz over or attempt to explain. I am questioning the concept and area, but do wonder about the usage of the term and, how it may be a whole way of academics 'glossing over' complex areas of philosophy, which they cannot really explain.

I just happened to come across a book in a charity shop today by Daniel Dennett, 'Consciousness Explained' it was written in 1991, so it may not be a representative of his current thinking. However, it has a whole chapter on ideas on qualia. I had not come across the idea until I started using this site and have seen it as area in between questions of perception and aspects of metaphysics of reality. So, I created this thread partly in my own understanding of this area in philosophy and, also with a view to how it stands with other people's understanding of how 'qualia' fits into their thinking. I also do read on neuroscience, because it may shed so much light on the mind, but, of course, philosophy is a bit different from psychology, with a much wider frame of reference, so my own questioning of 'qualia' is about the areas of existence which may go beyond psychological examination and what may be considered as metaphysical speculation.

Part of the problem which I see is that certain objective aspects of reality are easier to see than others. Those are the ones backed up by empirical evidence, as well as those of logic. However; logos and mythos are two aspects of understanding life and, the way of imagination involves story and narrative meaning. Even though it includes shared cultural meanings, it is constructed on a subjective basis, and each person has a unique 'reality' and it is not fixed, but fluid, shifting in accordance with interpretation of life experiences.

Your thumbnail is very distinct. The cross looking, or perplexed, philosophical child.

The question of how the Western world does think about the mind and brain is interesting, although as far as I am aware there is underlying debate about idealism and materialism even amongst Buddhists. I am not sure how the brain and mind issue fits in relation to the perennial philosophy of Aldous Huxley.I know that you read this book, so do you have any idea about how it links in any way.

Perhaps, it is worth getting lost in the terms at times and stepping into the murky areas of confusion. Perhaps, it may be worth taking risks, rather than being 'careful', because it may be that rethinking leads to new possibilities...

A lot of fun and games in this thread today, and, perhaps this is how philosophy should be, including the ongoing ins and outs of the mind and body problem!

I guess that with regard to the unique parts of personal identity, a lot depends on the aspects which are most fundamental, including the genetic components and environmental factors. However, there is so much which comes down to subjective interpretations and meanings. In a way, each of has own sense of internal meanings and narrative stories, which comprise the whole nature of identity. I asked the question, 'Who am 'I', but this also is the 'Who am I? ', which Erik Erikson points to as being the essential part of identity and identity crisis, especially important in adolescence. The whole experience of exploration during adolescence is about experimentation, and even rebellion.

So, personal identity is about finding a unique path in life and links to the issue of 'Know Thyself' and authenticity. This involves the existential aspects of life choices. Also, it may be that one knows who one is more in retrospect than in an advance, because it may be that many of the acts which the person does may be spontaneous and may be different from the way they would have imagined they would have acted. So, while the question of the sense of identity involves the ongoing sense of becoming, this also involves assimilation of previous choices and integration of this as an ongoing fluid sense of the ''I' of existence.

The idea of the 'mind' involving a whole interaction with the environment makes sense in many ways, especially with regard to the whole body. After all we are not just heads, with other parts dangling on as extra parts. The whole experience of the body includes the whole relationship between the physical aspects of the environment, such as factors like being hot or cold, what food and fluid has been taken in, and these also affect the brain and thought processes.

It would also follow that social aspects affect the mind too, and the whole emotional aspects of life, which are interconnected with the brain. Human beings are affected by the quality of the relationships they have with others. Self worth and self esteem, even the will to live and purpose are based on aspects of interpersonal interaction and how this contributes to a sense of the quality of a person's life and sense of wellbeing.

I think that your post is particularly interesting as the way in which the brain gives rise to mind is the part which is not known. The human mind is so complex, even if the mechanics are based on the brain.

It would likely be a positive development if neuroscientists are able to enable less cognitive dissonance. My only hope is that any such attempt, rather than putting limits on human potential, open it up to the most creative ones possible for the individual and humanity.

I wonder to what extent 'inside' and 'outside' are real, or fabrications of the human understanding of the experience of consciousness.

It does seem that so much time and energy is spent in explaining and thinking about the nature of consciousness. Of course, I have read the thread about enlightenment and probably spend the majority of my time in unenlightened states of consciousness. It can lead beyond the question of who am I, to what on earth is going on?

This may be a large question which arises in the area between philosophy and quantum physics..I wonder to what extent the findings of the physicists will throw some clarity, or whether it will give rise to so much more uncertainty and the whole philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness and substances underlying the existence of 'mind'.

I do think that the question of what is matter is extremely important, especially in relation to the underlying one of mind and matter. It can be asked if matter is the foundation of mind, but how do the two aspects come together and where diid matter arise from in the first instance? To what extent are mind and matter similar as aspects of metaphysics, or ways of describing important aspects of human constructs about this?

We could ask what is physical and what is not. In some ways, this may appear as a stupid question, but, on an experiential level of existence in terms of living in a spectrum of living as embodied minds this may make sense. In other words, to what is do mind and matter come together in the realisation of embodied human experience?

We could ask is the physical the starting point for mind? I am not saying that they are not, but I do wonder about this, especially in relation to philosophies of idealism, such as those of Berkeley. Are these outdated ideas? The exact same role of matter and mind, or which is primary seems to be essential within philosophy. Is it possible that it may go beyond an either/ or? What is mind and matter and how are the two differentiated in the first place? Is dualism is an issue here, although I am certainly not clear where mind and body end or merge, especially in the realms of emotions.

It is indeed a puzzle and I imagine that 180 Proof may have something to say if he is not sick and tired of this underlying question in philosophy. I wonder to what extent it can ever be explored sufficiently or whether many of us could spend our entire lives wondering about the nature of consciousness, especially how it is bound up with the nature of matter, as the underlying basis of it, as one of the central philosophy conundrums.

We could ask about the whole nature of correspondences and causation in general. The brain may be the apparatus of the mind, but the exact nature of causal reality may be more complex, especially as to how the material gives rise to specific states of mind in terms of human experiences.

Definitely Buddhism, or its many writers, have a lot to say about ego consciousness and the way in which the 'I' can be seen as illusory in certain respects. This is probably most clear in mindfulness meditation. I have some limited experience of using these techniques and it is about being able to observe the flow of thoughts and, at this level, even the 'I' can be seen as a construct. It may be that the I needs to be seen partly as a construct, but on the other hand, without the 'I' there would be no identity as we know it. Each of us would have the inner experience of being like blobs of mind jelly.

I think that your point about the idea of inner 'voices' is important because the 'I' may be experienced as a range of voices of thoughts although most people do not hear voices literally. But, maybe those who do even speak of hearing voices may be experiencing the fragmentation of the 'I'. So, psychosis may be related to difficulty in establishing a cohesive identity of subjective identity.

As far as understanding that other people have a sense of I is probably based on hearing others refer to themselves and their subjective experiences. It is also likely to be related to the development of theory of mind, in the sense of the individual developing understanding that other human beings have subjective realities similar to their own. In terms of individualism, it probably does come into it and in Western society there is so much emphasis on the self and people may develop identity with varying degrees of a sense of being part of a group, or as being a separate entity from others.