The Inter Mind Model of Consciousness

Consciousness is not an illusion. It is a model - a representation.

This means what we see is a model of what is there.

This means that the brains we see are models of the mental processes "out there" - outside of the model. The model is the brain we see, not the real thing that the model represents. What a brain represents is mental processes. Everything is a process, not a thing, like a brain. Things are the models we experience.

No. The model is the brain. What you experience is a process - mental activity. When you look at others' mental activity, you experience a model of it, which is a brain. The brain does not create models. The brain itself is a model of mental activity. Mental activity creates the model of the brain and all of it's interconnecting neurons.

We know the Mind does these things but the question is How does it do it?

bahman
We know the Mind does these things but the question is How does it do it? — SteveKlinko
Experience, decision and act are simply the properties of mind. We cannot understand how they work. Take the obvious example, how does decision work?

We have never seen the PL only the CL that is correlated to the NL

In talking about CSp it is assumed that it is not a space like our physical three dimensional world but it is certainly a different realm or reality.

You could say that Dreams are made out of CL. If it's not CL then what is it?

But how does the NL in the PM get converted to CL that the CM can use?

how does Neural Activity produce the Conscious Red experience?

We have never seen the PL only the CL that is correlated to the NL — SteveKlinkoI think that argument depends heavily or the definition of "see". If the definition of "seeing" includes the eyeballs receiving the physical light, then we do see light.

In talking about CSp it is assumed that it is not a space like our physical three dimensional world but it is certainly a different realm or reality. — SteveKlinkoHow do you come to the conclusion that this is a certainty?

I think it is more simple than the model you have shown. I think the PM and CM are the same, and the physical occurrence in the brain of neurons firing is the CM.
I think there is no need for the IM. In order for the NL to cause CL, the CM just needs to send neurons to alternate memories which are relative to the NL. The CL is created using the NL in combination with related memories of light. The correct combination of neurons firing to memories, is what creates a conscious experience of anything.

You could say that Dreams are made out of CL. If it's not CL then what is it? — SteveKlinkoI think you're nearly correct that dreams are made of CL, although it depends on your definition of "conscious" within the term "CL". I think it may be more accurately NL, since there is no conscious comprehension (if that is included in the definition of the C within CL) required of the light, for the NL to be saved as a memory, then stimulated later during sleep.

But how does the NL in the PM get converted to CL that the CM can use? — SteveKlinkoNow that I think about it, a lot of this may depend on your definition of the (C)onscious part of these terms. Do you mean conscious as in; mentally aware of (which we assume mostly only humans accomplish)? or as in; awake (which any animal accomplishes)?
If you mean simply awake, then I would think the NL just needs to be saved as a memory. Then the mind can access that memory later.

how does Neural Activity produce the Conscious Red experience? — SteveKlinkoBy memory. As the PL hits the eye and the information is coded into NL, the PM stores that coded information. Then later, the conscious red experience is produced by accessing that coded information again. Since, as you mentioned, the light is never physically in the mind, the initial experience of light is received only as the coded information. So accessing that same information (which is stored in the PM) later as a memory, should be nearly the same as experiencing it in the first place. Both occurrences are just coded information in the brain.

Seeing CL does not require the eyes to be involved. The CL we See while dreaming certainly has nothing to do with Physical Light or eye function.

I never say it is a certainty. I only propose that there could be a separate CSp that the CM exists in.

but the functionality of the Inter Mind must then be discovered to exist in Neural Activity and it must be explained as to how this happens.

But you are still experiencing CL aren't you?

Don't you think an Animal that has color vision can experience the Color Red just like we do? I think that they do. I think they have Conscious Minds just like we do. They're just not as smart. I'll do a diversion here to talk about Pain. Animals seem to feel the full and total Agony of the Pain just like we do. Pain is a Conscious experience. If an Animal feels Pain then why not the experience of Red?

How does that Memory (It's just Neural Activity) produce the experience of the Red? How does coded information in the Brain lead to an experience of Red? That is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness.

Seeing CL does not require the eyes to be involved. The CL we See while dreaming certainly has nothing to do with Physical Light or eye function. — SteveKlinkoThat is likely true, if your definition of "seeing" the light includes that which occurs while dreaming. I'd consider dreaming to be a process of memory (just like remembering seeing light, while awake), so I think its debatable whether or not to consider the process of remembering light, as "seeing" light. I think my point remains, if someone defines "seeing" PL, as light hitting the eyeball, then by definition, we do see light. That's seeing light, in general, but I would agree, if you specify "Conscious light", then it is not the PL hitting the eye, it is a process in the mind

I never say it is a certainty. I only propose that there could be a separate CSp that the CM exists in. — SteveKlinkoI "see" (ha ha). That's fair, as a possibility. Just a technical misunderstanding, as you stated "but it is certainly a different realm or reality".

but the functionality of the Inter Mind must then be discovered to exist in Neural Activity and it must be explained as to how this happens. — SteveKlinkoTrue. And, I believe I have an explanation, as I had posted separately, called "Consciousness as Memory Access". Summed up, basically conscious experience is created by; neurons accessing memories of any given thing, at the same time as neurons accessing memories of concepts of the interaction (cause and effect) of that same thing. I just dont really know what more to do with my theory, ha ha

But you are still experiencing CL aren't you? — SteveKlinkoI would think no, while dreaming, but yes, while awake and remembering it. Because you mentioned that your definition of the "conscious" part of CL, is being aware. I would say someone is not consciously aware of anything while dreaming (except to some degree perhaps, in the rare case of lucid dreams), so therefore not experiencing conscious light.

Don't you think an Animal that has color vision can experience the Color Red just like we do? I think that they do. I think they have Conscious Minds just like we do. They're just not as smart. I'll do a diversion here to talk about Pain. Animals seem to feel the full and total Agony of the Pain just like we do. Pain is a Conscious experience. If an Animal feels Pain then why not the experience of Red? — SteveKlinkoI think an animal does experience red just as a human, if the human is not consciously thinking about the red. Based on my theory, if a human accesses memories of the interaction of red, then they are being conscious of the red. I believe animals (mostly) do not execute this function of accessing memories of the interaction of red, and therefore do not experience red to the same degree, as humans.
I think animals have a minimally conscious (sub-conscious) mind, compared to humans. I think this is why they are not nearly as smart as humans. I think conscious memory access of cause and effect of any given thing, is what causes humans to be so much smarter. I think there is a direct correlation between degree of intelligence and consciousness.
Pain is virtually the same concept as red. I would not consider an animal to be consciously aware of pain while they experience it. Humans can consciously experience pain, if they consciously think about the occurrence of the pain. Consider this, if you ignore, or become distracted from pain, it is not nearly as bad as if you pay attention to it. Because you are not being conscious of it, by not firing neurons to parts of the brain relative to pain.

How does that Memory (It's just Neural Activity) produce the experience of the Red? How does coded information in the Brain lead to an experience of Red? That is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness. — SteveKlinkoThe conscious experience of red (or anything) is by means of a combination of simultaneous memories being accessed. The specialty of humans, is being able to dissect memories, and access all the individual components of memories, required to understand the interaction or cause and effect of something. If a person accesses the different components (saved as memory code) which are relative to "red" or "pain" or perhaps "self-existence", then they obtain a conscious experience of that thing or concept.

If someone defines it that way then ok. But we really only Detect Physical >Light we never really See it. We always only See our internal CL.

I disagree. I think I am fully experiencing the Conscious Light that makes up the scene I am looking at. This is true if I am Awake or Dreaming.

Yes that happens but how does all the Neural Activity produce the end product of a Conscious experience?"
-"I still don't understand how any kind Neural Activity can create the Experience of Red. You are saying: Neural Activity happens and obviously a Conscious experience happens. It isn't obvious to me how the Conscious experience happens.

>The neural activity produces conscious experience because the neural activity causes memories to simultaneously come to the mind of the person.
So, that which is being remembered all at once, by the person, is; [the object or concept, that the person is being conscious of] + [aspects of how that object or concept interact with its environment (or in this world)].

I'll try making into an equation:
CE = MA (FA + IF)
CE = Conscious Experience
MA = Memory Access
FA = Factor
IF = Interactions of Factor

For eg. Bob is conscious of a squirrel on his lawn.
FA = squirrel,
IF = concepts saved in memory of how that squirrel relates to this world.
CE (in Bobs mind) = MA (FA [the squirrel itself] + IF [Many concepts which are relative to the squirrel, including: being an animal, living on Earth, being alive, having a mind, the lawn which it is on, its behavior, its motivations, its senses, the weather elements affecting it, etc.]

This actually just made it more graspable for myself...
When Bob has memories of all those relative concepts, in his mind, at the same time, this combination of memories creates the Conscious Experience.
Does that sound like it makes sense?

The PL is Electro-Magnetic Energy, the NL is Neural Activity in the Visual areas, and the CL is the thing that we actually perceive.

I don't see that there is an explanation for the Vivid Image that you Experience for the Squirrel. If you lost all your memories about Squirrels you would still see the Squirrel just as Vividly.

The PL is Electro-Magnetic Energy, the NL is Neural Activity in the Visual areas, and the CL is the thing that we actually perceive. — SteveKlinko
This sums up a representational position on consciousness. There is a world, there is the data processing, and then third, mysteriously, there is a self that witnesses the resulting neural output.

So it is setting the problem up as an issue of translation - a transformation of inputs into outputs. First there is the physical output, then the neural output and then the conscious output ... which is somehow an experiential output. It has this new and substantial property of "being aware".

Nothing is being explained by this line of thought. We know that neural processing must have something critical to do with qualitative experience. But we don't answer any important question by positing it as an "inter" stage as that just shovels the essential mystery down the line to a new blackbox that somehow contains a self that does the witnessing of the neural output.

The better approach is to understand the neural processing in terms of a model of reality - a model of reality that dynamically incorporates a "selfish" point of view of the world.

So it is no surprise that a model of reality - one that is starting from a "selfish" point of view - should feel like something. If there is all this information being constructed into a living relation between a "self" and a "world", then why wouldn't it feel like something?

I would stick to understanding how brains model their worlds. And then turning the table on Hard Problem questions by asking is it really conceivable that a model with its own personalised point of view wouldn't feel like it was just such a personalised view?

If the neuroscience is viewed in the right light - as embodied reality modelling, with a "self" as an essential part of that construction of a reality - then the zombie argument loses its metaphysical force.

We can see why any amount of "information processing" wouldn't "light up" with the further substantial property of "consciousness". If the problem is framed as one based on representationalism, then the witnesser of the representation is forever left out of the conversation and zombies are made conceivable.

But if we understand how the brain is representing the observer as much as the observables, then the question becomes how could a sense of being conscious get left out of such a dynamic and highly personalised process of reality modelling? How could it be lacking when it would be the starting point of the "representing"?

I don't see that there is an explanation for the Vivid Image that you Experience for the Squirrel. If you lost all your memories about Squirrels you would still see the Squirrel just as Vividly. — SteveKlinko>By "Vivid Image", do you mean just the photographic picture of the squirrel, or comprehended overall image of the conceptual idea of the existence of the squirrel?
If all memories of squirrels and concepts relative to to squirrels were lost, I think you would still see the physical picture of the squirrel (vividity of this just, depends on eyesight and resolution), but it would mean nothing to you conceptually. I think it would be like a current day computer receiving a video of the squirrel. It could save the images in memory, but there would be no consciousness of the squirrel, with a lack of comprehension.

If it is still a Vivid Image then I think you are Conscious of it. I think we can have Vivid Images of all kinds of things that we have never seen before. We would never be able to be Conscious of new things with that theory. I think the Conscious experience and the Comprehension are two different and separate things.

If it is still a Vivid Image then I think you are Conscious of it. I think we can have Vivid Images of all kinds of things that we have never seen before. We would never be able to be Conscious of new things with that theory. I think the Conscious experience and the Comprehension are two different and separate things. — SteveKlinko
> If an image is photographically vivid, you think that means whatever is perceiving that image, is conscious of it?
Or if it's mentally vivid, then yeah, I'd agree that the individual is conscious of it, by definition...
But in order for an image to be mentally vivid, the individual should need comprehension of the scenario involved with the image. If no comprehension of scenario, than I would think it would not be mentally vivid. As humans, we can see images throughout the day, but if you're not paying attention, then you're not comprehending the scenario, and the image is not mentally vivid. You dont even notice what you saw...
The only way we would never be conscious of new things, is if we had no comprehension of the new image.

Just by saying that Something is perceiving the Image, to me, means that the Something is Conscious of the Image.

But directing Attention to a Conscious Object in your Visual Image is different than Knowledge and Memories about that Object.

I think you can have Vivid Images without any Knowledge or Memories of an Object.

Just by saying that Something is perceiving the Image, to me, means that the Something is Conscious of the Image. — SteveKlinko
>But what do you mean by perceiving? I think this is coming back to my same question of what you mean by a vivid image. These both relate to the basic question; what is the required function to be conscious of something?
If by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean mentally comprehend the scenario involved, then the required function would be that mental comprehension. This is basically my theory, that mental comprehension (and therein memories of concepts) is required for consciousness. This is the mechanical function.

Or, if by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean simply storing the image as a memory, then that seems like an overly simple method for consciousness, as even computers perform this function.

But directing Attention to a Conscious Object in your Visual Image is different than Knowledge and Memories about that Object. — SteveKlinko
>I think I would argue just the contrary, that they are not different, but the same, and that knowledge and memories of an object, are the mechanical function of directing conscious attention.

I think you can have Vivid Images without any Knowledge or Memories of an Object. — SteveKlinko
>But if you had no knowledge of the object or its setting or environment (so you had no comprehension of any aspect of an image you were seeing (for eg. woke up in a virtual reality world, where nothing that you sense is familiar)), then would you have a consciously vivid image or perception of any object within the environment?
Also, would the image be visually vivid before your brain stores the new sensory input as memories, then begins to theoretically, actively access those memories, at the same time that you continue to view the image?

By Vivid Image I'm talking about the immediate present moment when you are looking at something.. I'm not talking about trying to remember the Image of something after the fact.

We can certainly see new Objects we have never seen before in our Physical Reality so there is no reason to think that we would not be able to see the Objects injected by a Virtual Reality no matter how strange they might be.

I don't doubt we could see new things, I doubt the mental vividness of new things if we have 0 comprehension of what we are seeing. If you mean visually vivid, then perhaps it would still be vivid with no comprehension, as long as you have clear vision. But it seems quite likely that conscious vividness of viewing, involves more than just visual sensory input and data storage (as memory) of an image.

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening?

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening? — SteveKlinko> I think my explanation would still be basically the same, The neural activity for Red, causes a conscious experience, because of the combination of neural activity, which accesses memories relative to Red. This fills the Explanatory Gap, and would be the function causing the illusion of consciousness.
I'm trying to figure out, what doesn't work with this simple explanation?

>I mean it is the coordinated combination, that creates the experience.
If the neural activity of a memory is on its own, the memory doesn't do much for experience.
Or if the combination of neural activity is uncoordinated, and random or irrelevant, then the experience would be nonsense.
But when it's a coordinated combination of parts, the sum of those parts is a coordinated assembly.
The coordinated assembly, is the experience of Red.

I don't know how the neural activity functions mechanically, if that's what you're asking. All I know is somehow neurons store memories as information, and when that neuron is accessed, the info of that memory is recalled.
But as far as I can theorize, based on these concepts, this process of accessing the recorded information, is all it takes to produce a conscious experience of anything (including Red), as long as it's the appropriate info and neurons which are being accessed simultaneously.
I don't see why there should be anything more to it.

I think I understand what the question is asking. But my answer is still the same; it's just memory. Even when I concentrate on it, and it seems indescribable, I still comprehend the scientific reasoning behind that.

The brain is accessing the neurons which have saved the information about the wavelengths of light which reached the eyeball, when Red was recorded. It probably "feels" like something special and unique when you focus on it, because you are accessing memories of concepts relative to red, simultaneously to memories of the visual of red (wavelength information). This would also explain why Red does not seem significant, when it is seen or remembered, but not consciously thought about (no memory concepts accessed).

I think that is basically the only mystery about it. Same as all sensory data saved as memories.

How could you know that it exists only in the conscious mind though? It could potentially exist in a computer program (unless you would consider that a conscious mind). I dont believe it would with current day technology, but I suspect future general AI with perceive similar conscious states, including the experience of red

the Conscious Experience of Red) has Redness as a Property, but Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a Property.

where does this Surrogate come from and how do we Experience it?

the Conscious Experience of Red) has Redness as a Property, but Conscious Red Light does not have Wavelength as a Property. — SteveKlinkoSo, if by definition, the property of "Redness" is only in the conscious experience, doesn't that mean, the property of Redness is just the neurological process? (assuming conscious experience is a neurological process).

The difference between Wavelength and Redness, is Redness is in the brain as an interpretation of the wavelength.
So, basically I would think Redness is just the coded version of the measurement of the Wavelength.



where does this Surrogate come from and how do we Experience it?
>Assuming the eyeball measures the wavelength and translates that measurement into information (as you mentioned, it's a surrogate), then the brain would send and store that information as neurological activity.
So Redness would be the coded information of the measurements of wavelengths.

Computers code information, save it, and access it later. I'm guessing the brain does a similar concept, but with a more efficient coding and saving process (and the additional function of accessing many bits of information simultaneously).

It is a little bizarre to think that everything we ever experience, is probably only information of measurements, which is coded and saved with neurons..

When memories of these concepts, plus similar scenarios are accessed simultaneously, as a combination, this creates the conscious experience of Red.

You are also likely accessing memories of seeing the color and similar shades in past instances. These neural patterns of memories of red, match current incoming neural patterns of visual input (when you are actively looking at red).

Just because all these Neural things are happening does not even begin to explain the actual Experience of Red.

Just because all these Neural things are happening does not even begin to explain the actual Experience of Red. — SteveKlinko
Why do you say that? Why shouldnt a complex combination of simultaneous memory access explain the experience?
I don't really see any reason to assume that the experience must be more than that.

The "experiencer" is the additional quantity of neural activity. The inter-workings of a complex combination of many smaller elements, creates something greater and more significant than the sum of the parts.

I think that concept is observed to occur in other situations in this universe, as combinations of smaller parts (potentially the way that virtually everything is constructed by smaller parts),
so why can't consciousness be the same?

Both the Red Experience and Neural Activity could be considered the same category of Memory Access. I suppose you could argue the red experience isn't necessarily memory access, but considering it's an "experience", it could also be argued that any experience is memory.

If my explanation is true, then the difference between the 2 categories, is that 1 is the cause, and 1 is the effect. Neural activity is the cause, and the Red Experience is the effect.

The visual screen embodied in front of your face, that you mention, is memory. Similar to taking a photo, then later accessing that photo. Its a coded recording of the image. Human memory just isn't nearly as precise as a computer, at accessing a particular memory.

An additional quantity of one category of thing, results in a different category, by cause and effect, since the extra quantity surpasses a point, which causes a new effect.

eg 1. a small quantity of water on the ground is moisture, but an additional quantity surpasses the point where the category becomes a puddle.
eg 2. a small quantity of various molecules in an egg + additional quantity = baby

You say that if they really are both the same category in the first place then the problem is solved. Ok, but you offer no reason to think that they are the same category. You only just say they are. What's the reasoning? I still recognize two separate categories..

Science can explain the steps about how molecules in an egg become a baby. But you have not explained how more Neural Activity becomes a Conscious experience. You only say that it could. You offer no explanation of how it does. It seems more like a wish or a hope.

>I cant explain the precise molecular function of how neural activity creates a conscious experience, as I'm not a scientist. But can explain the more generalized logical logical process.
I believe I offered plenty of explanation of how neural activity creates conscious expeirence (and could link or paste more that I have tried to explain the overall concept).
Evidence supporting it, is common knowledge concepts, and the theory explains how the cause and effects of those concepts interacting with each other.

I dont claim it scientifically proven. I claim it's a theory, which should be considered, and tested for flaws and to see if it can be disproven, and potentially become scientifically proven. After a while now with this theory, I have yet to receive much of any reasoning at all suggesting it is incorrect

I dont mean; common or existing knowledge, which is regarding the overall function of consciousness. The theory is regarding overall consciousness yes, but the common knowledge I was referring to was more like basic concepts. The theory takes those basic concepts like puzzle pieces, and explains how they fit together.

I attempt to arrange the puzzle pieces of neural activity (+ common experience effects) to fill the explanatory gap. With the finished puzzle, the correlation & cause/ effect between neural activity and consciousness, is portrayed.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that common experience effects are additional "puzzle pieces", not really added to neural activity. Common experiences that involve neural activity, but the function of which, aren't necessarily completely understood or proven by neural activity.

Experiences such as memories triggering other memories, or compounds of memories creating memories of concepts, or categories of memories, or analyzing cause and effect, etc.

My overall explanation is not that finding more neural activity will magically explain consciousness. My explanation of consciousness, is that all the known neural activity can create consciousness, when in the correct combination. Which is why I refer to it as a puzzle. All the pieces are there, and known (at least sufficiently), they just have to be arranged correctly.

"The problem is that the Brain is an electro-chemical machine and nowhere during all the processing that goes on can you find the actual Conscious perception of Light. I like to say that when you have a Conscious perception of Light that you are seeing Conscious Light. "

Why do we continue to seek for consciousness within the Brain. Descartes localized it to the pineal gland and Science laughed, and continues to do so. Why all this ridiculous peripatetic philosophical meandering. It has not been found in the brain, or in the neurons or the synaptic clefts or the neurotransmitters, or neural activity..... etc etc ad infinitum.

It clearly, is NOT there. Lets get over it!

If it is not there it must be somewhere else...? Oh no..... I hear the thud of the homocentric giant approaching. He is about to club me over 'my conscious' head, and insist that Man is still the center of the Universe that he is the measure of all things, and that he manufactures this 'consciousness' somewhere inside his head and we will find it, if we just keep looking. As long as he can continue to do so he can maintain the delusion that 'God' is within him or the more contemporary delusion that he is a 'God' unto himself.

Why does philosophy insist that Galileo must continually recant, and that "God" or consciousness is inside our heads. Why not follow established precedent and point the telescope/microscope towards the stars?

But even when you get to the point of having all the pieces and you know these pieces cause the Conscious experience, the question still screams out as to how the Conscious experience happens from these pieces.

There is a Categorical difference between any kind of Neural Activity that you can talk about and the Experience of something like Red.

It clearly, is NOT there. Lets get over it!

Evidence suggests that consciousness involves brain activity. We have not thoroughly tested and understood all aspects of brain activity.

But even when you get to the point of having all the pieces and you know these pieces cause the Conscious experience, the question still screams out as to how the Conscious experience happens from these pieces. — SteveKlinko> I don't think I see the difference.
If we have a causal explanation of the mechanical function of something, that is the answer of how. If we explain it with neural activity, then it seems to me that the question is answered, of how the Conscious Experience happens from the pieces. What is left to be answered?

As with your eg of the Red Experience, hypothetically with the understood neural function, it does explain how.
What more is there to explain? Asking how, asks what function causes a result. Hypothetically, that would explain just that: the function which causes the result.

There is a Categorical difference between any kind of Neural Activity that you can talk about and the Experience of something like Red. — SteveKlinko> The only categorical difference that I see, is degree of specificity. Neural activity is a more specific category involving details, where as experience is more general, involving less detail of the scientific process. This doesn't mean that the details of neural activity cannot explain the more general overall experiences.

The Mind is a computer. The Body is a Machine. The Self is what I'll call "Self". For my purposes Self is the energy that experiences the data that it receives from the computer. Life is the every changing environment in which we live. Self evaluates that information and inputs the requisite commands reflective of Self's decisions. The Mind and Machine work together to process the commands all while gathering data. Self faces choices that will impact the very fabric of how they experience Life.

Life is often referred to as a game which is in some ways accurate but in truth is more an open world MMO (an open explorer formatted world online game in which anyone around the world can play and interact with each other).

Much like the game we start at birth with nothing. Now modern life might toss a few basics your way. A home of some kind, clothes, perhaps some food. Granted as humans we are giving very little in the way of instinctive memories. So we learn from the world around us.

You see in this game the player is your self. It arrives with no instructions, no training and little else. We are 100% reliant on the machine we assigned and those who birthed out machine.

I will leave the example at this point and ask that you consider your position on this topic with a certainty that the self remains regardless of the condition of the machine. Once the Machine is damaged beyond repair and function the self moves on but that topic has enough threads no doubt. I will add that the self also is with certainty separate from the machine. The self experiences all the physical and emotional feelings and sensations provided by the machine and the computer but the self is definitely separate.

This all being said does it chance what you think and how?

Just looking for the right partners.

What is the evidence that suggests that consciousness involves brain activity?

I would suggest that consciousness has been more thoroughly investigated by Philosophy than brain activity has been explained by Science

Consciousness in Philosophical parlance would appear to cause and or contain brain activity, in the same manner that it may contain our perception of 'objective' reality.

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?

consider your position on this topic with a certainty that the self remains regardless of the condition of the machine. Once the Machine is damaged beyond repair and function the self moves on but that topic has enough threads no doubt.

Since there is that unexplored potential, it seems most logical to assume that with further investigation of brain activity, using science, we will then discover the explanation of consciousness.

Consciousness in Philosophical parlance would appear to cause and or contain brain activity, in the same manner that it may contain our perception of 'objective' reality. — Marcus de Brun

Yes, and wouldn't you consider "perception of 'objective' reality" to be the basic concept of "consciousness"?

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.

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?

The Redness of the Red

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

it assumes this Virtual Reality without explaining what it actually is

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.

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.

these are just Neural Correlates of experiencing the color Red

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.

I would still need to know what the Conscious experience of Red is. What is the Red?

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

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 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?

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".

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.

Physical Red light has the Property of Wavelength. Conscious Red Light has the Property of Redness.

because my brain is dying yet my self remains far more intact than most people assume

I suggest that this position is a consequence of a; pleasing, tempting, fashionable, contemporary and entirely materialist bias.

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 suggest that this position is a consequence of a; pleasing, tempting, fashionable, contemporary and entirely materialist bias.
— Marcus de Brun
> This could be true, but it is also the most logical position, as I explained. So thinking that consciousness is not brain activity, may be just as bias toward an alternate explanation.

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.

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

> 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...

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.

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.

my position cannot be construed as containing a bias as my view strictly accords with the agreed facts (ie there is no material evidence for the endogenous manufacture of human thought/consciousness). My position is also your position, unless you have some evidence to contradict my view

All of this amounts to nothing more than self serving assumption and lies outside of the facts.

But how can something like the experience of Red come from Memory Access?

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.

Just by saying that Something is perceiving the Image, to me, means that the Something is Conscious of the Image. With all Conscious Sensory experience there is an implied Observer. Understanding what the Observer is, of course, is the Hardest part of the Hard problem of Consciousness. Ironic since we are the Observers.

The inner self is connected to the thalamus.

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.

> Do you mean agreed facts are that there's no evidence that consciousness is related to brain activity?
If so, I don't agree to that, as I believe there is lots of evidence that thought processes correlate with brain activity. I did provide suggestive evidence of this, which you didnt seem to refute.

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.

but how can any kind of Neural Activity result in that Experience?

Scientists have no idea how Neural Activity causes or results in the Red experience.

Scientists do not yet have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer.

correlation between brain activity and consciousness, but this in no way implies the euphemistic application of correlation with the notion 'cause'

yet there is no evidence to suggest that it is caused.

I might just as easily assert that brain activity is in fact caused by consciousness

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

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.

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.

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.

I'd argue that correlation does imply cause. It doesn't prove cause, but correlation implies a higher probability that it is also a cause.

wikipedia:This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy.

elements involved with conscious experiences, are measurable and evident to occur regardless of consciousness

I'm not quite sure what is simpler when it comes to Sensory inputs but I suppose a Bell and a Flashing

But to me Red is a very simple basic Experience.

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

Indeed there is a correlation between both neural activity and consciousness. It is very easy then to join the herd in the assumption that consciousness is the 'effect' and private neural activity is the 'cause'.

I have already pointed out that this view is homocentric and does not address the reality that neural activity and the identification of such activity is both contained and consequential to, consciousness.

we can then consider the fundamental question pertaining to its creation of the experience of material reality.

principally because we do not venture into assumptions that result in the need for further false assumptions.

Consciousness as an entity outside of or uncaused by neural activity, becomes relieved of temporality

It also satisfies the empirical nature of determinism

Wilful adherence to the old but persistent paradigm does not advance the agreed correlation between consciousness and neural activity, it merely reasserts the current paradigm.

And yet Steve's point remains unanswered: scientists do not have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer.

Science is the (valuable and useful) perspective you get when you reduce humans to impartial observers. The study of experience and experiencers requires that humans be considered as active participants.

To investigate experience and experiencers, a tool other than science is needed.

wikipedia:that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc

Doesn't this presuppose knowledge of consciousness that we do not currently have? :chin:
...and exactly what are these "elements" that are measurable and evident, and have they actually been measured, and found to be evident? :chin: Just asking. :wink:

Consciousness is the cause and neural activity is the determined effect.

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.

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.

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)

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..

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

And yet Steve's point remains unanswered: scientists do not have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer.

If the experience etc. is simply neural activity, then I believe we do have a method for studying it, as we have studied lots of neural activity.

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.

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..

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?

If indeed consciousness is caused by neural activity then one must ask what is the instigation of this "neural activity'.

and merely requires us to consider consciousness as a valid ex-homino exogenous entity/force with ex-homino activity that is observable in the context of physics and or quantum mechanics.

When we talk about the Bell we are talking about the Conscious experience of Sound.

The point is that the Physical Sound has the 44Hz Property. The Conscious Sound experience has no 440Hz Property.

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

the abstract distance between neural activity and experience is just too big to span.

It's like trying to appreciate Microsoft's word processor as a stream of bytes. It is a stream of bytes, but this does not help us to understand it as a word processor.

Human experience is mostly composed of stuff that science discards, or does not detect/acknowledge in the first place.

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.

the abstract distance between neural activity and experience is just too big to span

I disagree, and think the distance is not big.

By "experience" do you mean specifically the more conscious aware experience, or any experience?

If you consider different experiences in different degrees of conscious vividness, then an experience with very minimal or no conscious vividness, should have basically no figurative distance to span, from neural activity to experience.

It's like trying to appreciate Microsoft's word processor as a stream of bytes. It is a stream of bytes, but this does not help us to understand it as a word processor.

If the stream of bytes was measurable and detailed to the same degree that neuroscience is, then by testing the comparison of reaction between the bytes and the alterations on the screen, I think it would be helpful to understand it as a word processor.

Human experience is mostly composed of stuff that science discards, or does not detect/acknowledge in the first place.

like what for example? If science explains the functional processes of the neurology involved with an experience (such as the eye measuring light, coding it into neurons, then accessing those neurons), then what more is there that science does not detect?

This reminds me of Pirsig's rephrasing, whereby "A causes B" becomes "B values pre-condition A". Both are valid expressions of the same thing. Perhaps consciousness and neural activity are the same?

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing.

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

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

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

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

The experience of Red or the Standard A Pitch are completely unexplained by Science at this point in time. — SteveKlinko>I think that may be an over-exaggeration. I believe a lot of the elements involved in the experiences, are explained.
-Here's a video of how te eye measures light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoUyMuMVJQY
-Then here's an explanation of the next step, of transfering that information to the brain: http://discoveryeye.org/the-brain-and-the-eye/
-then the next step of storing information as memories: http://www.human-memory.net/processes_storage.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

The colour red.

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

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

This would be strange if it was not entirely determined.

OK, perhaps you can, but will it account for the human experience I have described? The feel of the water as my hand passes through it. The trees on the bank, and the rustling sound of their leaves blowing in the wind? ... In other words, the whole experience, as a human experiences it. Can you describe that adequately and usefully in terms of neural activity? I don't think that's possible, is it?

I am not aware of any human experience that is not a "conscious aware" experience. Perception precedes experience, as it must, but the human does not experience the experience (sorry! :wink:) until it reaches our conscious minds, and then we become aware of it.

I think you're saying here that an experience that barely (or doesn't?) registers in our awareness is closer to "neural activity" than one which engages our attention thoroughly?... I refer to the whole process of human perception, followed by the thoughts and feelings that come with the experience once it enters our conscious awareness. The whole thing.

I refer to the whole process of human perception, followed by the thoughts and feelings that come with the experience once it enters our conscious awareness. The whole thing.

These bytes don't change with the screen display. They are the instructions that cause the computer to execute word processing functions.

And I contest your assertion that neuroscience is "detailed". The problem here, with the abstract distance between neural activity and human experience, is that the gap between the two is huge, and not yet understood or "detailed".

What combination of neurons fire in these circumstances? What are the weightings that cause them to fire in this way, not another? And what is your detailed description of how the firing of these particular neurons gives rise to these experiences?

How does my experience of joy, fear or grief affect my neural activity (or vice versa, if you prefer :wink:)?

There is much more to it than mere sensation.

Yes, we could reasonably see the eye as measuring light, but it does not code "it into neurons". The optic nerve itself begins the neural processing, even before the data reaches the brain proper.

It is not sense - store - recall - review. It is more like sense - perceive - associate - interpret - integrate into worldview - conscious awareness.

Note in particular that only at the final stage, when perception is effectively complete, is the information passed to our conscious awareness. Prior to that, there is no conscious input to the process whatever. Not even the tiniest bit. Perception is pre-conscious. And it is much more than detecting light, and storing the fact that we detected it.

Science does not acknowledge or detect (using the red snooker ball example) the wealth of meaning contained within the human concepts of "red" "snooker" and "ball",

It's a complicated subject, of which we know only the most basic details, as yet.

But current knowledge definitely indicates that you underestimate or misunderstand what human perception involves.

OK, perhaps you can, but will it account for the human experience I have described? The feel of the water as my hand passes through it. The trees on the bank, and the rustling sound of their leaves blowing in the wind? The smell of a local brewery nearby, and the imagined pleasure of drinking a pint of beer, that might soon follow...? In other words, the whole experience, as a human experiences it. Can you describe that adequately and usefully in terms of neural activity? I don't think that's possible, is it?

I think it is possible. I don't see why a physical process involving the laws of physics should be impossible to describe. How to describe it may depend on your definition of "describe".
It should be quite plausible to describe every step of the mechanical function involved with the sensory input, neural activity, and instinctual triggers of emotion.

...will it account for the human experience I have described? The feel of the water as my hand passes through it. The trees on the bank, and the rustling sound of their leaves blowing in the wind? The smell of a local brewery nearby, and the imagined pleasure of drinking a pint of beer, that might soon follow...? In other words, the whole experience, as a human experiences it.

So does that mean you agree that humans perceive many things daily, subconsciously, which don't count as an experience, because we are not consciously aware of them? Basically, the majority of data that your senses perceive, but you are not consciously aware of.
And would you agree then, that most of what animals perceive is not an experience, if they are not consciously aware of it?

These bytes don't change with the screen display. They are the instructions that cause the computer to execute word processing functions. — Pattern-chaser


>But once the instructions causes word processing functions, this would then cause the screen display to change, as word functions are executed, wouldn't they?

How does my experience of joy, fear or grief affect my neural activity (or vice versa, if you prefer :wink:)? — Pattern-chaser


>I believe the basic connection between the 2 is generally understood, at least to the degree of function.

There is much more to it than mere sensation. — Pattern-chaser


>I dont think I grasp your explanation which argues this point. Other than sensation, there is neural activity and emotion, but what more?

It is not sense - store - recall - review. It is more like sense - perceive - associate - interpret - integrate into worldview - conscious awareness. — Pattern-chaser


>But the steps of "associate - interpret - integrate into worldview" are all neural activity, of relative memories (and could be summarized as "store"), wouldn't you agree?

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

The sensation of Tone-ness is only in the Conscious Sound which the Brain creates as a Surrogate for the 440Hz. The Tone sensation that you hear seems so appropriate for the Physical Phenomenon because it is the only way you have ever experienced Physical Sound. That is through the Surrogate which has nothing to do with the 440Hz itself.

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

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

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

Then, for the Conscious Experience, it just has to be explained how the correct combination of accessing these memories, with relevant alternate memories, causes a conscious experience
— Tyler
Yes, huge Explanatory Gap is still there. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

I thought (and still think) it impossible-to-describe-adequately-and-usefully. By this I mean to be clear: adequately and usefully to a normal human being, living a real life in the real world.

Oh, and I'm not trying to describe "a physical process involving the laws of physics". Look what I said:
...will it account for the human experience I have described? The feel of the water as my hand passes through it. The trees on the bank, and the rustling sound of their leaves blowing in the wind?

I'm suggesting that your perspective does not meet the needs of humans living their everyday lives. And so your philosophy is not useful to them, despite the benefits you see in it for other reasons. You are not wrong. That's not what I'm saying. But your approach is less than useful. That's what I'm saying. :up:

The first type is not detected by our senses, or is discarded during perception; the event is not experienced. The second type is experienced consciously. The third is experienced, but outside of conscious awareness, by our nonconscious minds.

And this is where we diverge, I think. This has nothing to do with 'function'. Experience is not function.

Other than sensation, there is neural activity and emotion, but what more?
— Tyler

Perception.

:wink: My point is limited to what I have already said: that the abstract gap between neural activity and the human mind - or consciousness, if you prefer - is just too wide for us to conveniently and usefully bridge.

You are ignoring the analysis, interpretation and understanding of what has been detected by our senses. Which is to say, you are ignoring perception, as we humans do it.

But the mind and the brain, as problems, or subjects for investigation, are defined by their connections more than by their components. A neuron alone does nothing useful. A neuron connected to a (very) large network of other neurons can participate in the operation of a whole brain. It's the connections that define it, mostly. And, if we approach it via reductionism, the first thing we do is to (unknowingly, one assumes) discard nearly all of the relevant data (the connections), and investigate the remnants, which are the disconnected (i.e. maimed) components of the object of interest. Such an approach cannot succeed, for the brain, mind, and all similar things. I.e. things whose interconnections are a significant part of what they are, and how they function.

[T]his brings me back to my point that humans have experiences lacking in conscious awareness. I think this point is relevant because, if humans have those simpler experiences, and if it's agreed that those simpler experiences are explainable, then the gap is not large between the explanation of those simpler experiences and more complex experiences, involving conscious awareness.

We just have to explain the experiences, starting from simple, as they increase in degree of conscious awareness.

I think I mostly understand your point, and agree that it cannot be explained by only reductionism.

If all the portions are explained, and then further more, the connections of the portions are explained, to overlap all portions, then the overview of the entire combination of the concept can be put together like a puzzle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have Neural Activity that seems to produce the Metaphors but we have no Explanation of How we experience the Metaphors. This is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness

How can Neural Activity of any kind ever result in a Red experience? Think about the Redness of the Red. What is that?

Why is there a need to explain and 'establish' our experience when it is already established, say NOW when I am seeing the screen of my phone, and I am translating my own meaning of words, and I am using as the most absolute reference knowable, my own experience?

That is idiotic

How can Neural Activity of any kind ever result in a Red experience? Think about the Redness of the Red.

I am seeing..., and I am translating my own meaning..., and I am using..., my own experience?

I am using as the most absolute reference knowable...

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

?Tyler
Why is there a need to explain and 'establish' our experience when it is already established, say NOW when I am seeing the screen of my phone, and I am translating my own meaning of words, and I am using as the most absolute reference knowable, my own experience? SteveKlinko @BrianW@Pattern-chaser

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

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

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

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

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

Hearty, :cool:

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

Some cultures don't have a good naming convention for Color but it does not mean that they can't see Colors.

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

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

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

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

Just because we don't have a name for the other shades of Blue doesn't mean we can't see them.

But our eyes give us only four (:gasp: ) snap-shots per second, mostly in low-res monochrome, with a higher-res colour area in the middle, the latter occupying the same area in our fields of vision as a full moon viewed from Earth. It takes a great deal more than embellishment to make this seem like full-motion hi-res colour video, and this is part of what our brains and minds do to enable us to perceive the world. It astonishes me that we can see at all.

What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it.

Some cultures don't have a good naming convention for Color but it does not mean that they can't see Colors. Maybe there could be a whole group of isolated people that are genetically color blind from birth. They would have no use for Color designations.

All this has been know for decades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?SteveKlinko How don't you get it?

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

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

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

The Redness of the Red only exists in a further processing stage after the Retina.

Redness does not exist in the Physical World. This is the thing that needs to be explained.

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

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

Firstly, please don't presume to lecture me on the importance of perception, okay? I know more than most how perception is effectually godlike in power where it concerns us humans.

Finally, you said "... and this is part of what our brains and minds do to enable us to perceive the world."

LOL. If you're going to lecture of the difference between conscious awareness and perception. You really should be a lot more careful of your usage of the word perception :)

If I am told to picture 'blue,' the first thing that comes to mind... What will it be? Why?

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


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

?SteveKlinko My question is what is the physical world other than consciousness?

I would argue that while, yes, perception occurs outside of conscious Awareness, it does not occur outside of the conscious mind. I would in fact state that perception is the very first rung of he conscious mind, because everything that consciousness is, is built off of it.

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

Freud - Totem and Taboo

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

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

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

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

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

The only missing stage is the stage where the Neural Processing results in the experience of Red for example.

Redness does not exist in the Physical World.

What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. The question remains as to how Neural Activity can result in an experience of Redness.

So it makes sense to propose this Consciousness World until Science can show how it is a part of Physical World.

Complex Adaptive System Theory might be applicable except that there is a Chain of Neural Processing that happens from the initial Light hitting the Retina to signals travelling down the Optic Nerve to multiple stages of Visual Cortex Processing.

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

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

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

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

What we know about Redness is that certain Neural Activity has to happen before we experience it. The question remains as to how Neural Activity can result in an experience of Redness. — SteveKlinko
The Physical World exists within time/space where we can have before and after. If the redness is outside of this world - it can be neither before nor after a neuronal activity. So, please make up your mind. :)

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

Complex Adaptive System Theory might be applicable except that there is a Chain of Neural Processing that happens from the initial Light hitting the Retina to signals travelling down the Optic Nerve to multiple stages of Visual Cortex Processing. — SteveKlinko
Again - there are no chains of neuronal activities. There are no unidirectional signals traveling from retinas only. There are also signals traveling to retinas from Visual Cortex... :)

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

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

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

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Any introductory textbook on the Eye and Visual Cortex will tell you that there is certainly a Chain of Processing. There is of course lots of feedback from later stages back to previous stages but the general concept of a Chain of Processing is absolutely true.

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

Don't have to quote papers for every post I do. The Neural Chain of processing is basic Brain Science. Go read any textbook on Brain Physiology.

Any introductory textbook on the Eye and Visual Cortex will tell you that there is certainly a Chain of Processing. There is of course lots of feedback from later stages back to previous stages but the general concept of a Chain of Processing is absolutely true. — SteveKlinko
Which textbook, for example? This is rather a dismissal of the request to cite a paper. We cannot chase each other with "textbook claims". Textbooks are likely to be simplified. I will, therefore, cite:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001110073236.htm . Kanwisher and Kathleen O'Craven did not notice the absence of differences between imagined and actually seen.
Frank Werblin and Botond Roska found that what we "see" (in the rest of our brain) are hints of edges in space and time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766457/ . ( https://sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/moviesinoureyes.pdf ).

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

Why can't Redness be before or after Neural Activity? What do you know about Redness that the rest of the world doesn't? — SteveKlinko
I can also ask "What do you know about redness and the rest of the world doesn't?" :)

Don't have to quote papers for every post I do. The Neural Chain of processing is basic Brain Science. Go read any textbook on Brain Physiology. — SteveKlinko
I have read textbooks long time ago. Now I read papers... :)

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

With regard to Redness, the only thing I know is that it is a whole different Category of Phenomenon than Neural Activity. I don't say anything more about it than that. But I do ask this question ... Given:

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

How can Neural Activity, of any kind or complexity, produce that experience of Red?

With regard to Redness, the only thing I know is that it is a whole different Category of Phenomenon than Neural Activity. I don't say anything more about it than that. But I do ask this question ... Given:

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

How can Neural Activity, of any kind or complexity, produce that experience of Red? — SteveKlinko
Red experience is a subjective experience of the neuronal activity for red. It's true that subjective experience seems like a whole different category, but that is the nature of all subjective experiences... :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't care about THAT debate anymore.

I experience experience. That is it.

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

What is the goal here?

The two Categories are not Artificially separated. They are so different in the kind of things that they are that you would actually have to Artificially combine them. They are Naturally separated by their own manifestations as different Categories of phenomena.

Science can put them together and show how Neurons firing produce a Red experience then that's ok too. But for now at this point in our understanding it is only sensible to keep them separate.

The two Categories are not Artificially separated. They are so different in the kind of things that they are that you would actually have to Artificially combine them. They are Naturally separated by their own manifestations as different Categories of phenomena. — SteveKlinko
Then the question is: Do we experience neuronal activities themselves (not the colour)? If we do, how do we experience them? If not, what is the purpose of neuronal activities? :gasp:

Science can put them together and show how Neurons firing produce a Red experience then that's ok too. But for now at this point in our understanding it is only sensible to keep them separate. — SteveKlinko
Depending on how do you answer the above questions we might be able to continue these monologues... :)

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

To be scientific - I would put it differently: "Consciousness World" is of this world - until proven otherwise.

Then the question is: Do we experience neuronal activities themselves (not the colour)? If we do, how do we experience them? If not, what is the purpose of neuronal activities? :gasp:

For me I experience the Color. I have no inner knowledge of Neural Activity.

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:

Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else?

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

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:

Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else? — Pattern-chaser
This world is a physical world. I have introduced it as a contrast to Steve's otherworldly Conscious World... :)

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

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Evidence suggests that consciousness involves brain activity.

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

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

I'm not 100% convinced that this is a scientific viewpoint. :chin: I don't think science would assert anything that has not yet been demonstrated. So science would surely hang back from asserting the location of the Consciousness World, until we know where that might be, yes? :chin:

Oh yes, and what is "this world", in the context of the Physical and Conscious Worlds? Is it the former, or is it something else? — Pattern-chaser


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

Also, we are talking about assumptions here... :smile:

Generally, in science, the assumption is that all phenomena are of physical world until proven otherwise.

Otherwise, we may assume that a phenomenon is not of this world and get stuck - with impotence to prove that it is not... :gasp:

I have to emphasize the point: Science has Zero understanding with regard to Consciousness. Consciousness is clearly something that Science can not handle yet. They are getting nowhere thinking it is in the Neurons. It is time to think outside the box.

But you separated them yourself in the previous sentence!

I think not. Science recognises only one world, Steve's Physical World, so they don't have a need to discuss worlds. Like in the sci-fi stories, when they ask the aliens what they call their home, and they say "Earth" or "the world", and look at the strangers oddly. When there's only one world, there's little point in discussing it. :wink:

It's true that subjective experience seems like a whole different category,

I did read it. You said it seems separate. I know you don't think it is separate, but you have not acknowledged that the person who says things are not as they seem is the one with work to do.

That's not entirely true. Some scientists talk about multiverse...

I have to emphasize the point: Science has Zero understanding with regard to Consciousness. Consciousness is clearly something that Science can not handle yet. They are getting nowhere thinking it is in the Neurons. It is time to think outside the box. — SteveKlinko
As yet, I wouldn't dismiss the science... :)

However, I agree that there is something in the redness of the red. For the moment, consider the consciousness as a composite. My scenario that does not go against science would be as follows:

The retina is made of rods and cones that are essentially specialised neurons of the central nervous system. This enables us to see directly what retinas are exposed to. As yet, there is no colour - the rest of the brain has to agree with what is seen... :)

This scenario allows for colour label as we learn to see the redness. This also allows for colour as a cultural thing... :)

In short, I propose that consciousness is a composite of all retinal and neuronal activities... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I don't thinK Color Consciousness requires the Retina to be involved. We can experience Color while Dreaming where the Retina is inactive but certain areas of the Cortex are active.

I think that Color Consciousness is further upstream in the processing and is probably a composite of all the Visual Cortex areas.

My main point is that the Conscious World is non-existent to science. Science cannot see it. So science cannot meaningfully address it, can it? :chin:

EDIT: you have suggested a theory of your own, maybe that is what you mean.

I don't thinK Color Consciousness requires the Retina to be involved. We can experience Color while Dreaming where the Retina is inactive but certain areas of the Cortex are active. — SteveKlinko

There is an activity - Rapid Eyes Movement (REM) - suggesting an involvement of our retinas. :)

I think that Color Consciousness is further upstream in the processing and is probably a composite of all the Visual Cortex areas. — SteveKlinko
Optic nerves do not have a capacity to send a complete graphics to the rest of the brain. And that's what we are after -aren't we? :)

Rapid eye movements do not imply Retinal activity. Besides it is a fact that there is no Retinal activity while Dreaming. There is even very little V1 activity.

The Optic Nerve transmits a complete Topographical mapping of what is on the Retina reproduced on V1. The image on V1 is distorted, kind of like a very bad fish-eye lens.

Rapid eye movements do not imply Retinal activity. Besides it is a fact that there is no Retinal activity while Dreaming. There is even very little V1 activity. — SteveKlinko
There is no direct evidence either way. But consider: Why eyes move during REM sleep? :)

The Optic Nerve transmits a complete Topographical mapping of what is on the Retina reproduced on V1. The image on V1 is distorted, kind of like a very bad fish-eye lens. — SteveKlinko
The optic nerve simply doesn't have the capacity... :)

My main point is that the Conscious World is non-existent to science. Science cannot see it. So science cannot meaningfully address it, can it? :chin:

Scientists are people like us... :)

Assuming you understood what I was trying to say then do you believe there is not enough capacity in the Optic Nerve to allow such a mapping? If so then you are wrong about the lack of capacity because this mapping is basic Visual Cortex physiology that you can find in any textbook on Visual Cortex operation..

First, it is not clear to me that "experiences lacking in conscious awareness" are "simpler". Do you offer any justification for this assumption?

"if it's agreed that those simpler experiences are explainable" - again, this has not been established. You have asserted so, but offered no justification. Please explain these 'simpler' experiences, in terms of neural activity.

We just have to explain the experiences, starting from simple, as they increase in degree of conscious awareness.
— Tyler

Go on then....

I am confused. First you agree that reductionism cannot properly investigate something whose function is primarily related to the connections between its components:
I think I mostly understand your point, and agree that it cannot be explained by only reductionism.
— Tyler

Then you ignore this, and repeat your previous (unjustified) assertion:

But how will you explain the connections when you have used a reductionist approach? Let's just remind ourselves, again, how reductionism works. Divide and conquer. The components are disconnected - and further disassembled themselves, if necessary - until the remaining fragments are simple enough to be analysed and understood in isolation. Where significant functionality lies in the connections, it is necessarily lost in the reductive dismembering!

Please explain how "the connections of the portions are explained", when those connections were ignored and destroyed by your reductionist approach. :chin:

Assuming you understood what I was trying to say then do you believe there is not enough capacity in the Optic Nerve to allow such a mapping? If so then you are wrong about the lack of capacity because this mapping is basic Visual Cortex physiology that you can find in any textbook on Visual Cortex operation.. — SteveKlinko
As I said before: I have been reading textbooks long time ago. Now I read papers... :)

Here are some about the capacity of optical nerves:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/frank-werblin-and-botond-roska/ ,
http://cnc.cj.uc.pt/BEB/private/pdfs/SystemsNeurosc0607/PapersSergePicaud/ArticleDiscussion%201Picaud_%20Roskanature.pdf ,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766457/

First, it is not clear to me that "experiences lacking in conscious awareness" are "simpler". Do you offer any justification for this assumption?

>I assume conscious experiences are more complex, partially based on my understanding that conscious experiences are still considered unexplained, yet experiences without consciousness are mostly explained...

I believe simpler experiences, which don't involve conscious awareness, are currently explained (to a sufficient degree), because as far as I'm aware, all the steps involved in a simple experience, are scientifically explained.

"I believe a lot of the elements involved in the experiences, are explained.
-Here's a video of how te eye measures light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoUyMuMVJQY
-Then here's an explanation of the next step, of transfering that information to the brain: http://discoveryeye.org/the-brain-and-the-eye/
-then the next step of storing information as memories: http://www.human-memory.net/processes_storage.html"

After the portions are explained, it can be reviewed where those portions came from. Then, in the same way that each portion was likely understood by cause and effect, the portions can be understood by cause and effect, in their relation to each other.

After reductionism, taking the next step of placing the portions back into the original combination, it should be discernible how all the portions interact with each other, to understand the overlap, and explain the overall function.

I did not get from these links that anything they said disproves the Topological mapping from Retina to V1. Refresh my memory, did you say that because of a Capacity problem of the Optic Nerve that there is no Topological mapping?

Refresh my memory, did you say that because of a Capacity problem of the Optic Nerve that there is no Topological mapping?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/

Don't see how this undermines the Topological mapping from Retina to V1. Anything you do will change your Brain in some way.

What we see is what we expect to see, to an alarming degree...

Don't see how this undermines the Topological mapping from Retina to V1. Anything you do will change your Brain in some way. — SteveKlinko
It needs to be considered together with another older research:

http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0329011.htm :)

What we see is what we expect to see, to an alarming degree... — Pattern-chaser
Exactly!

Enjoy the day, :cool:

I'm interested in how you perceive the problem of consciousness pre-theory.

Based upon scientific research, there is no "detailed graphics" in our brain. So, I suggest that we see what our retinas see... :)

This still did not invalidate the fact that V1 is Topologically mapped with the Retina.

The expectation puts the towels there but reality catches up fast. The real world is remarkably and reliably presented.and reality overrides expectation quickly unless you are psychotic.

This still did not invalidate the fact that V1 is Topologically mapped with the Retina. — SteveKlinko
What do you mean with "V1 is Topologically mapped with the Retina"?

The expectation puts the towels there but reality catches up fast. The real world is remarkably and reliably presented.and reality overrides expectation quickly unless you are psychotic. — SteveKlinko
There was an experiment: Person A would ask for directions. Person B would start giving directions to persona A. Two other people would carry something between persons A & B so that A & B cannot see each other for a couple of seconds. The third person C would quickly replace person B... :)

The interesting thing is that person A would not notice the switch...

Means that each point on the Retina is mapped to a point on V1.

Recent studies at the University of California, Berkeley, however, show that the metaphor is more poetic than real. What the eye sends to the brain are mere outlines of the visual world, sketchy impressions that make our vivid visual experience all the more amazing.

Means that each point on the Retina is mapped to a point on V1. — SteveKlinko
Then how do you interpret this: http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0329011.htm ?



Recent studies at the University of California, Berkeley, however, show that the metaphor is more poetic than real. What the eye sends to the brain are mere outlines of the visual world, sketchy impressions that make our vivid visual experience all the more amazing.

It's time to be serious. Vague references to textbooks are not constructive. Show us a paper...

What we ‘see’ depends on the features extracted in the retina, and how this information is integrated and interpreted by the brain. In the retina, the visual information is split into two streams, one for colour and one for form and motion.

What we ‘see’ depends on the features extracted in the retina, and how this information is integrated and interpreted by the brain. In the retina, the visual information is split into two streams, one for colour and one for form and motion.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/retinal-ganglion-cell .

Given that all that Neural Activity is happening then how do we get that Visual experience in our Conscious Minds?

What is that Visual experience?

Good article.

This argument of consciousness is like what the argument of gravity used to be (before Newton).

This argument of consciousness is like what the argument of gravity used to be (before Newton). — BrianW
Before Newton geometry (circle) drove movements of celestial bodies. Copernicus tried to describe the heliocentric system with circles - but it didn't work. Kepler "cheated" with ellipses to make it fit into the heliocentric system. Only when Newton proposed the theory of gravitation things started to "click together"... :)

Science does not have a theory for how Consciousness is produced from the Neural Activity.

Science does not have a theory for how Consciousness is produced from the Neural Activity. — SteveKlinko
Consciousness does not emerge from neuronal activity... :)

As I said: neuronal activity produces abstracts vital for quick responses to the environmental challenges.

I seems that for Sensory input that there has to be Neural Activity before the Conscious experience happens.

I seems that for Sensory input that there has to be Neural Activity before the Conscious experience happens.

I seems that for Sensory input that there has to be Neural Activity before the Conscious experience happens. — SteveKlinko
Why?

Nobody knows why.

Nobody knows why. — SteveKlinko
Retinal outputs are hints and edges - sketchy images... :) our impression of the visual images are vastly more than that. The further neuronal activities are even more sketchy than that. There is no room for the richness of visual impressions... :)

The only way to account for the totality of visual experiences is to take raw stimuli before any neural activity... :)

It seems that to have a Visual experience further processing must happen.

If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.

...to enable us to live, the brain and nervous system eliminate unessential information from the totality of the Mind at Large.

It seems that to have a Visual experience further processing must happen. — SteveKlinko
That's not what the science says... :) According to numerous findings - there is no anything like a reconstruction of visual impressions anywhere in the brain... :)



If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.
from The Doors of Perception



...to enable us to live, the brain and nervous system eliminate unessential information from the totality of the Mind at Large.
Charlie Dunbar Broad :)

The whole cascade of neural activities has only one purpose - to emphasise the most relevant stimuli as quickly as possible...

The only point at which we have the unfiltered totality of visual impressions is when retinas are exposed to the visual stimuli minus retinal cells activity...

That's not what the science says... :) According to numerous findings - there is no anything like a reconstruction of visual impressions anywhere in the brain... :)

One thing Science is pretty sure about is that there is lots of Neural Processing that happens before a Conscious experience happens.

The question is, how does all that Neural Processing create the Visual Image that we see in our Conscious Minds?

If this is an hallucination, I'd be interested to know why and how....

One thing Science is pretty sure about is that there is lots of Neural Processing that happens before a Conscious experience happens. — SteveKlinko
That's what I call "perception", but maybe I use the term incorrectly. :chin: First there is sensation - input from the senses - then there is perception - (extensive) 'processing' of the sensory input - and the end results are passed to the conscious mind, apparently fully-formed. Perception, like sensation, is pre-conscious and unconscious. We have no awareness of it, but we deduce (maybe wrongly? :chin:) that it happens.

Your sequence is probably correct.

The question is, how does all that Neural Processing create the Visual Image that we see in our Conscious Minds? — SteveKlinko
Since there is no totality of visual experiences in the rest of the brain - we can assume that the retinas offer the basis for the totality of visual experiences... :)

Whatever passes through optical nerves is turned into hints of edges and coulour can not be the basis for the totality of visual experiences...

That's not what the science says... :) According to numerous findings - there is no anything like a reconstruction of visual impressions anywhere in the brain... :)

BrainHQ.com:V1 cells are organized retinotopically, which means that a point-to-point map exists between the retina and primary visual cortex, and neighboring areas in the retina correspond to neighboring areas in V1.

But while Dreaming at night you can have very Vivid and Complete Images created by the Mind and there is no input from the Retina.

But while Dreaming at night you can have very Vivid and Complete Images created by the Mind and there is no input from the Retina. — SteveKlinko
I'm not convicted that REM does not contribute to the vividness of our dreams... :)

There is no activity in the Rods and Cones when Dreaming. Eye movements don't create Visual Scenes. Something at a further stage of the processing seems to be creating the actual Visual Images that we see when we are Dreaming or when we are Awake.

There is no activity in the Rods and Cones when Dreaming. Eye movements don't create Visual Scenes. Something at a further stage of the processing seems to be creating the actual Visual Images that we see when we are Dreaming or when we are Awake. — SteveKlinko
It is true that we do not have a proof about the activity of rods and cones in the retinas during the REM. For that, we would need a human subject + fMRI... :)

However, we are running in circles... :) Despite all of the evidence that there is no a totality of visual experiences within the brain -- you are coming back to your hypothesis... :)

Now, give us a proof that the totality of visual experiences is hidden somewhere in the brain... :) But, that's rhetorical... :) I'm sure that you will not find a paper... :)

Alternatively, consider a reverse path of signals from the rest of the brain --- to the retinas during imagination or sleep... :)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11177421
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/11/02/brain.imagining.reut/

(Please note that there is no difference between imagined and actually seen.)

If your speculation is that the Visual Images that we see are strictly generated by the Retina then the question is how does the Retina generate the Visual Images that we see?

If your speculation is that the Visual Images that we see are strictly generated by the Retina then the question is how does the Retina generate the Visual Images that we see? — SteveKlinko
While we are awake, the retina does not generate images. It simply contains the totality of visual sensations. Retinal pre-processing turns this totality of visual sensations into abstracts of "what is what" giving us the fast and pretty accurate navigation through the infinity of visual impressions... :)

While dreaming (REM) this is reversed. The rest of the brain generates abstracts of "what is what" sending them to the retinas. And the retinas provides the rest of simulated visual experiences... :)

While we are awake, consumption of hallucinogens (like mescaline, for example) reduces the impact of abstracts of "what is what" resulting in an overwhelming infinity of visual impressions. (See "The Doors of the Perception".)

But when I look at a particular scene in front of me How is that Scene Image presented for me to See it? It appears that the scene I am looking at is painted on a kind of Screen that is embedded in the front of my face.

Also what is the "I" that is Seeing that screen?

Are you aware this is a philosophy forum? You seem innocent of the philosophical issues.

But when I look at a particular scene in front of me How is that Scene Image presented for me to See it? It appears that the scene I am looking at is painted on a kind of Screen that is embedded in the front of my face. — SteveKlinko
When awake, visual sensations have many layers... :) The most fundamental is an infinity of visual sensations, but without "what is what". In other words, we are lost, without "what is what" layers... Subsequent layers are "what is whats" - that dull the infinity of visual sensations...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doors_of_Perception ... :)

Also what is the "I" that is Seeing that screen? — SteveKlinko
The "I" is a part of "what is what"... However, the roots of identity have been found in plants:
(https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050811104308.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23779000 )...

Despite all of the evidence that there is no a totality of visual experiences within the brain -- you are coming back to your hypothesis... :)

Now, give us a proof that the totality of visual experiences is hidden somewhere in the brain... :)

Where is "all of the evidence" that you refer to?

Mescaline trips are interesting but they do not shed any insight into the question at hand.

Don' t understand what the Pea Pod growth behavior has to do with anything.

Mescaline trips are interesting but they do not shed any insight into the question at hand. — SteveKlinko
That's the reason why reading the book I recommended would be useful... :)

Don' t understand what the Pea Pod growth behavior has to do with anything. — SteveKlinko
The difference between self and non-self is a root to what we call identity, In other words, self and non-self distinction evolves into what we call "I"...

?SteveKlinko The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of qualia or Husserl's hyle?

There is simply a prior, non physical, phenomenal aspect that no understanding of the physical will ever give rise to: for such an understanding would have to suffice to replace it, which is utterly impossible, and is completely incommensurate with its object, and is bombastic in even a consideration.

This is not said nowadays because people are scared of being called a theist or, even worse, NOT ATHEIST! HOW SCARY!

As if such a statement says anything further!

insanus populi

The Hard Problem is: How does the Neural Activity (using drugs or not using drugs) produce the Conscious experience?

The Hard Problem is: How does the Neural Activity (using drugs or not using drugs) produce the Conscious experience? — SteveKlinko
Again. Neural activity does not produce conscious experience. But, we are getting back to neuronal activity (not retinal activity) again --- as if we never discussed it. I will, therefore, stop repeating myself... :)

?SteveKlinko There is visual stuff when you close your eyes. They are called phosphenes. Have you heard of this? I, personally, have a theory about how sleep begins, with regard to phosphenes, and subjectively I have proven it, because it always works.

I may have forgotten to mention that the Rods, Cones, etc. of the Retina are considered to be specialized Neurons. The Retina is just an extension of the Brain and so you can say that the external Light impinges directly on the Brain.

How does the Neural Activity of the Retina produce a Conscious Visual experience?

?SteveKlinko You should see the phosphenes when you close your eyes in darkness while your brain is on LSD or psilocin, or any psychedelic substance. Extraordinary colors, patterns, fractals, zooms, geometry... Even colors that you never see otherwise.

I may have forgotten to mention that the Rods, Cones, etc. of the Retina are considered to be specialized Neurons. The Retina is just an extension of the Brain and so you can say that the external Light impinges directly on the Brain. — SteveKlinko
Actually - I said that... :)

There are two effects of the retinal activity. The totality of visual experiences and hints and edges that travel through the optical nerves to the rest of the brain... :)

How does the Neural Activity of the Retina produce a Conscious Visual experience? — SteveKlinko
Neural activity does not produce a "Conscious Visual experience"... :) Only a combination of the totality of visual experiences and retinal activity (sketchy images) produce a "Conscious Visual experience". For example: If we are born blind there would not be "Conscious Visual experience"... :)

When we are born - we are almost blind and need to learn "what is what"... :)

When the "what is what" is diminished (under the influence of a drug, for example) the totality of our visual experiences dominates... :)

But then the question becomes: How does Only a combination of the totality of visual experiences and retinal activity (sketchy images) produce a "Conscious Visual experience"?

But then the question becomes: How does Only a combination of the totality of visual experiences and retinal activity (sketchy images) produce a "Conscious Visual experience"? — SteveKlinko
We are stuck here... :) You are asking for something to "... Produce a Conscious Visual experience"...

The totality of visual experiences is simply there --- without anything to produce it... :)

Enjoy the day,

?SteveKlinko exactly! I have seen what you have seen without any mind altering substance as well. But I will remark again on the extraordinary effect the safe psychedelic substances can have on perception and experience, as well as the brain, which already have endogenous hallucinogens and hallucinogenic tendencies that represent certain neural components, neurotransmitters and synaptic receptors whose function and effect are correlated with a fine mechanism of consciousness, feeling, sensation and understanding. But I degress.
These light shows as I call them represent an extraordinary system, display or paradigmatic system of consciousness and organic life. They are amazing and the beauty they show of our own very experiences makes life ever more fascinating.

Your very statement screams out for further explanation.

You are still saying that the Neural Activity happens and that Explains everything. It is mind boggling to me that you cannot realize the thing that is missing in your explanation. The thing that is missing is the Red experience itself and the 440Hz Tone experience itself.

OK, on what logical basis do you assume these things?

Where? By whom? What are these explanations? You assert they exist, without saying where, and without saying what they are. :roll:

Your third link describes our memories, but offers nothing specific to vision or seeing, that I could see.

Don't you think we could be more successful if we applied a different process, and retained the interconnection-information instead of throwing it away?

It should (be discernible), maybe. But is it? And how does this discernment work, exactly? You're offering wishful thinking in lieu of explanation.

Your very statement screams out for further explanation. — SteveKlinko
Why? :) You started with Consciousness happens - without anything like neuronal activity... :)

Neuronal activity can produce only "what is what" or sketchy images. It simply does not have the capacity to produce/transmit the totality of visual impressions... :)

Enjoy the day,

You are still saying that the Neural Activity happens and that Explains everything. It is mind boggling to me that you cannot realize the thing that is missing in your explanation. The thing that is missing is the Red experience itself and the 440Hz Tone experience itself. — SteveKlinko
>From my perspective, once the mechanical process is outlined, something is explained. I think we've gone through this cycle of disagreement before, but I get the sense you want or expect something more than an explanation of function. I believe that's all there is, and different conscious experiences just seem so extravagant and profound, that its hard for our minds to except an explanation.

say that:

1) Neural Activity happens
2) A Conscious experience happens

1 and 2 are the two things we know that are happening. We don't know why 2 happens when 1 happens.

Either way, you are having 2) happening on undecided 1) relations. I could claim a relation too... :)
But I do not. You are still looking for the totality of visual impressions somewhere in the brain... :) And that's unrealistic, to put it mildly...

his is unclear Damir. It's not clear you actually understand the difficulty SteveKlinko is describing. Maybe you do understand it, and you have a good answer, but so far nothing you have said indicates that (not that I have really understood much of what you have said).

Can you state in your own words the philosophical problem that SteveKlinko is patiently and repeatedly raising?

We know that neural processing must have something critical to do with qualitative experience.

In short, these links (posted in the previous comments) show that only sketchy images are passed from the retinas to the rest of the brain... :)

My preferred solution to this is to deny that there are unfelt states, and suggest that consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything. That brings its own problems, but it is a putative solution to the problem.

Can you have another go at stating the problem, and then say what your solution is?

My preferred solution to this is to deny that there are unfelt states, and suggest that consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything. That brings its own problems, but it is a putative solution to the problem. — bert1
I have not a problem with what you say. I'm stating something similar... :)

Can you have another go at stating the problem, and then say what your solution is? — bert1
I'm tired of repeating myself... I can only restate my position which seems to be beyond your grasp:

The hard problem of consciousness is hidden in the totality of visual/auditory impressions... :)

But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand.

But what is the Solution? If you are saying that your statement is also the Solution then I don't understand. — SteveKlinko
As I said before: We witness the totality of visual/auditory impressions before retinal preprocessing. The retinal preprocessing adds "what's what" to the totality of visual/auditory impressions. In a way, retinal preprocessing dulls the totality of visual/auditory impressions - but give us a faster management of the totality/infinity impressions... :)

This is not a farfetched impossibility - for retinal cells are directly exposed to unaltered stimuli...

It's been known for a hundred years that Brain Activity, of whatever kind you want to talk about, produces Consciousness.

It's been known for a hundred years that Brain Activity, of whatever kind you want to talk about, produces Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
Unfortunately, this has not been known for hundreds of years... :)

I stated that the totality/infinity of visual/auditor impressions precedes retinal preprocessing. I, therefore, state again that totality/infinity of visual/auditory impressions precedes further preprocessing making the totality/infinity available to our senses. In other words, consciousness does not emerge from retinal preprocessing or other neuronal activities...