The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue May 09, 2017 10:51 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: An Evolved Cognitive Representational Device ,,, now that's a mouth full.
As I suspected, you are struggling with the basic physics and evolutionary mechanisms. .

SteveKlinko wrote: But where's the Red in all that?
Exactly the same place as "tastes salty" for receptors detecting sodium chloride. It is the brain's....Evolved Cognitive Representational Device

SteveKlinko wrote:As far as the Box goes, you need to get out more.
At least I have offered some evidence and hypotheses. I note that you haven't got that far yet......but did tell us you are a dualist....so science doesn't really matter to you. Try a religious forum. :D

Ok so the experience of Red is an Evolved Cognitive Representational Device. That explains everything. Sorry to have bothered you with the Hard Problem of Consciousness because the answer was actually so simple and easy.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue May 09, 2017 11:01 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: QM has a long history of being linked to Consciousness, especially certain interpretations. .

Set out your working theory for why "Red" is the mind's way of representing 650 nm wavelengths and the exact quantum mechanical process or processes you claim are involved.

You see, quantum mechanics is the name given to a set of specific phenomena. You seem totally unable to say which exact phenomena from that set, you are invoking. You are simply throwing the entire set into your fuzzy claims to make your claims sound scientific.
:lol:

The Wikapedia page for Quantum Consciousness says: The Quantum Mind or Quantum Consciousness group of hypotheses propose that Classical Mechanics cannot explain Consciousness. It posits that Quantum Mechanical phenomena, such as Quantum Entanglement and Superposition, may play an important part in the Brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue May 09, 2017 11:11 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Actually, Steve is hardly the first person to mistake 'quantum' for magic. If you check out woo web sites, it is a common theme. When they see something their little minds cannot understand, they call it 'quantum', or else some form of magic (like paranormal, which is just another word for magic.).

The two big differences between quantum phenomena and magic is that first, there is evidence for quantum phenomena. There is none for magic. Also that quantum phenomena can be described mathematically, and this can be used to make reliable predictions. Since magic does not exist, this cannot be done for magic.

What Steve still fails to realise is that his intermind is just another kind of magical thinking.

I knew you would like me saying that Consciousness is kind of Magical. I say that only to point out the special nature of something like the experience of Red. Humanity has not been able to figure it out yet. Do you really think that anyone actually has a clue what Consciousness is? All anyone has ever done is solve the Easy Problem. Do you think the Hard Problem is solved? Do you even know that there is a Hard Problem of Consciousness?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue May 09, 2017 11:21 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Set out your working theory for why "Red" is the mind's way of representing 650 nm wavelengths and the exact quantum mechanical process or processes you claim are involved.

We don't know why the Mind represents Red that way. That's a developmental question. Red exists without there being 650 nm wavelengths. Red is a Conscious thing not a wavelength thing. You can see Red in your Dreams without there being any 650 nm wavelengths anywhere in your bedroom. So where does that Red come from in your Dreams? What is the Red? You have to get to a place where you can understand that the experience of Red has nothing to do with wavelengths.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed May 10, 2017 12:53 am

Steve

It is not only possible, but already has been done, to design a computer connected to a color video camera, so that the computer 'perceives' red. At least it responds to red according to programming. That is purely mechanistic. If you think the human brain does something mysteriously more, that is DEFINITELY magical thinking.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 1:31 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:You see, quantum mechanics is the name given to a set of specific phenomena. You seem totally unable to say which exact phenomena from that set, you are invoking. You are simply throwing the entire set into your fuzzy claims to make your claims sound scientific. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Wikapedia page for Quantum Consciousness says: The Quantum Mind or Quantum Consciousness group of hypotheses propose that Classical Mechanics cannot explain Consciousness.

So your theory is so well developed that you are now able to read a wikipedia page about it? :roll:

It was Roger Penrose, in The Emperor's New Mind who postulated that consciousness cannot be measured at any exact moment, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It has nothing to do with the brain evolving the cognitive representation of certain light wave frequencies as red.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

Let's try again...What is your exact working theory for "red" and what exact phenomena from quantum mechanics are you invoking?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 1:39 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Red exists without there being 650 nm wavelengths. Red is a Conscious thing not a wavelength thing.
Why am I doing all the work? You don't seem to know anything about your chosen topic.

Read this and tell me what the conclusion is.....
Gene Therapy Gives Monkeys Color Vision
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/09/ ... lor-vision

Did the male monkeys have red green cones....No,
Did the male monkeys have the neural pathways to cognitively recognise red green....Yes.
Is Red Green therefore a simple evolved physiological cognition device that exists in our DNA? Yes.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed May 10, 2017 11:52 am

My question is, how does the brain combine all our conscious experiences into a single shared stream, when the conscious elements may be separated .... Where do they "come together" in the brain as our "unified stream of consciousness"? Which particular location of the brain do all these conscious elements combine to be blended and coalesced into a single field? If we can't point to any specific point, then we either have to admit there is a very important aspect of consciousness we have no idea about, or must start looking at how these "models" in the brain, which represent experiences, which are separated from one another, can somehow be combined and experienced as one unified experience.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed May 10, 2017 8:47 pm

Dimebag

I call bullsh!t on your comments. There are many aspects of the human brain that are decentralised. The classic one is memory. Brain surgeons often use probes and electrical stimulation on the brain on conscious patients, to determine how vital an area of the brain is. Those probes elicit memories, and memories can be brought out from the entire outside layer of the brain.

Consciousness is also decentralised, and that fact does not, for one moment, support your case.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 11, 2017 2:28 am

Dimebag wrote:My question is, how does the brain combine all our conscious experiences into a single shared stream,
It doesn't.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Thu May 11, 2017 10:58 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Dimebag

I call bullsh!t on your comments. There are many aspects of the human brain that are decentralised. The classic one is memory. Brain surgeons often use probes and electrical stimulation on the brain on conscious patients, to determine how vital an area of the brain is. Those probes elicit memories, and memories can be brought out from the entire outside layer of the brain.

Consciousness is also decentralised, and that fact does not, for one moment, support your case.

So you are saying there is no binding problem when it comes to conscious experience? So are you proposing that we do not experience a unified stream of consciousness, but that it is in fact separate parts which never come together? When you look at a red rose, do you see a rose that is both red, and in the shape of the rose, and do these two properties of experience coincide together, or are they each separate? In your proposal, you would only see a shape of a rose, and somehow, there would also be redness.. Somehow associated with but not part of, that rose... That doesn't fit with my personal experience.

I think the brain can truly become decentralised, and split brain patients are the perfect example, where the corpus callosum, is severed leading to two hemispheres being non communicative. But in a functioning brain the many expert centres involved in processing different tasks manage to incorporate their outputs into a central area, something which is akin to what is described as "working memory". This is what I refer to when I mentioned the bringing together of all experiences, and that is what neuroscience needs to focus on finding if it is to have any hope of solving at least the easy "how", of the binding problem.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Thu May 11, 2017 11:01 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Dimebag wrote:My question is, how does the brain combine all our conscious experiences into a single shared stream,
It doesn't.

The certainty of which you hand out your succinct response gives away your undying allegiance to the status quo.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Thu May 11, 2017 12:21 pm

He explained why it isn't.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 11, 2017 8:43 pm

Dimebag

Centralisation is definitely not needed. Computers tend to operate on networks of wires and transistor elements. The brain is a network of nerve cells. That network does not have to be all in one place, as long as it is connected. Memory is decentralised, so whay cannot consciousness also?

I am not sure that the split brain example is a good one. Such people have to be considered as abnormal. Not their fault, of course, but hardly a good example, since they represent a brain that is disfunctional.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Thu May 11, 2017 9:27 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Dimebag

Centralisation is definitely not needed. Computers tend to operate on networks of wires and transistor elements. The brain is a network of nerve cells. That network does not have to be all in one place, as long as it is connected. Memory is decentralised, so whay cannot consciousness also?

I am not sure that the split brain example is a good one. Such people have to be considered as abnormal. Not their fault, of course, but hardly a good example, since they represent a brain that is disfunctional.

if it is not needed, then we must accept that these separate elements, although separated by space, can be, "layered atop one another", somehow, and become our experience. Any ideas how the brain might achieve this? I kind of imaging the way you can take a projector screen with several different parts of the same scene, although separate (in the same way animation artists used to) and layer these transparent elements on top of one another to comprise a single scene. That is how I imagine our visual world becomes an experience. What I wish to know or hope can be investigated is how this is achieved, because even if we couldn't identify the hard problem of such a scenario, it would be a good first step towards cracking that particular egg of the problems of consciousness.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Thu May 11, 2017 9:56 pm

Another thing which we need to focus upon is how through our whole vast array of senses, our brain can discriminate between all these signals in order to find that which is most pertinent,and allow it to become the centre of our focus. Obviously there are many different signals competing for the spotlight which is our central attention. How does the brain achieve this? What makes a certain area of the brain become the focus of our attention?

The way I think about a sense such as vision, and from my understanding, we have many different processes going on in order to make up our visual field... From the very basic, bottom up side of things, of certain cells detecting lines, shapes.. Colours.... All the most basic elements of a visual field... Then layered in on top of that we have higher level things like movement... Depth perception, object recognition, and further, symbol recognition, each layer becoming more and more abstract and less information from the senses directly, and yet at a moments notice we can call upon this information at a whim once a certain feature becomes the focus of our conscious experience.

But from what I can determine, we can only perceive one aspect within that focus at any one time, in our conscious focus... However there is always a residual surrounding conscious pool from which our conscious attention can bring into focus.... We have a very fine grained consciousness which can analyse the more fuzzy broad field of consciousness. And of course our senses take in and process more than we are aware of, with each brain area making its own contribution based on the limited amount of information brought in from our senses when not in focus, and they do this just fine, until something abnormal, outside of their basic programming, comes up, and then our central focussed consciousness is drawn toward that area, which can then no doubt transmit the information to the wider brain and receive help from many different "expert" areas.

But looking at consciousness from this perspective it's hard to see what might make any one particular experience conscious in the first place, as we don't just experience every single process going on in every single specialty area of the brain.... Is the consciousness we experience maybe the broadcasting of information from certain specialty areas of the brain to the wider brain in order to recruit its services? This makes sense to me, take for example, when we read something. We don't just instantly know that the word in front of us is "brain", there are certain processes going on... And once the word is identified, it no doubt sends a signal to our centres responsible for the concept of the brain, (it's shape, the way the word sounds, it's purpose and association to ourselves... And any of these signals that prove useful to whatever else was going on before we read that word will no doubt be flagged, and they might also enter our consciousness, however briefly.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu May 11, 2017 10:02 pm

Connections are not an issue. The whole brain is intimately connected to every other part of the brain by the neural network.

I have never seen consciousness as a great problem. To me, being conscious is simply the recognition of that entity we call "I". The architecture of consciousness is still not known, but it is almost certainly just a matter of 'wiring'. That is, the right neurons all connected together in the right way.

A more interesting question is why did consciousness evolve. My own hypothesis is that it was a tool to neural modelling ( also called using your imagination), which is used to improve chances of surviving and reproducing. A bit like a computer model, which creates a simulation of reality inside the computer circuitry, to permit predictions. The human brain does the same. Our neural models are used to make predictions, and cause us to behave in such a way as to get the most desirable outcome. We imagine stuff. It may be directly related to survival, like a rustle in the grass is 'imagined' as a predator, even if we cannot be sure. Our response is predator evasion, hence increasing our chances of survival.

In the middle of this, appears the "I". The model says, 'what will happen to this "I" if no evasion occurs?' The answer is that "I might die". So the evasive behaviour is the response.

In the same way, it applies to reproduction. A man models (Imagines) in his brain a scene in which he approaches an attractive woman. He models how his various behaviours might elicit a response from her that might (or might not) lead to sex. The entity "I" appears in those models (or imaginings). What must "I" do to score?

Since the welfare, survival, and sexual success of that entity called "I" is now very important, the consciousness of "I" is a vital part of neural modelling (the workings of imagination). So consciousness evolved.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu May 11, 2017 10:13 pm

Hi Dimebag, long time no sense! :wave:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Fri May 12, 2017 1:33 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Hi Dimebag, long time no sense! :wave:

Hey scrmbldggs, yes, I've had quite a hiatus raising children, but thought I'd pop back in and see what discussions we have here. I see there is still a healthy skeptic gathering, however the tone seems slightly more reasonable and slightly (just) less dismissive and ridiculing. A better environment for supporting the discussion of such issues for which this section of the forums exist. :)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 12, 2017 1:36 am

Dimebag wrote:My question is, how does the brain combine all our conscious experiences into a single shared stream,
Matthew Ellard wrote: It doesn't.
Dimebag wrote: The certainty of which you hand out your succinct response gives away your undying allegiance to the status quo.

...or that I had to recently read a whole lot of science papers concerning the scientific explanations for OBEs and NDEs.

What is the scientific name for this "single stream"?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Fri May 12, 2017 1:47 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Dimebag wrote:My question is, how does the brain combine all our conscious experiences into a single shared stream,
Matthew Ellard wrote: It doesn't.
Dimebag wrote: The certainty of which you hand out your succinct response gives away your undying allegiance to the status quo.

...or that I had to recently read a whole lot of science papers concerning the scientific explanations for OBEs and NDEs.

What is the scientific name for this "single stream"?

Personally I don't know, do you? What I do know is the brain integrates information from our senses, for if that information is not integrated, we can be aware of certain aspects of our senses but not others. There are obviously brain structures which combine all this information, would you disagree with that? I propose that is how we achieve a "single stream" of consciousness, and not useless bits of information which can't be used by other parts of the brain.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 12, 2017 1:54 am

Dimebag wrote:Personally I don't know, do you?
How can I know the scientific name for something that doesn't exist?

Dimebag wrote: What I do know is the brain integrates information from our senses
....apart from elements of that same information also sent to the autonomic nervous system, which doesn't go to the brain. Next time you feel hot and sweaty, ask yourself how you body knows to sweat.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri May 12, 2017 1:56 am

Not so much brain structures as brain regions. Visual sensory data is processed in the visual cortex at the back of the brain. Auditory in the cortex to the side of the brain. But both are part of, and continuous with, the entire cerebral cortex.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Fri May 12, 2017 2:57 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Not so much brain structures as brain regions. Visual sensory data is processed in the visual cortex at the back of the brain. Auditory in the cortex to the side of the brain. But both are part of, and continuous with, the entire cerebral cortex.

Sure, but don't you think there must be connections going from the visual cortex, to the prefrontal cortex, where that visual information can be made sense of, and allow the brain to plan for behaviour, and for that to happen there must also be connections from the areas related to physical motion of the body? This would allow us to act upon what we see.

I think that is what you are referring to when you mention being part of and continuous with, the cerebral cortex. But to simply say "they are connected" and leave it at that, doesn't identify how the areas are connected, or How by being connected, they can achieve any form of functional conscious processing.

The problem is, those same areas can be engaged in for example, visual processing, and yet will not necessarily be the focus of consciousness. How does this selective process work, what structures are responsible for directing where attention is focused and allowing that which is our conscious focus, become so?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri May 12, 2017 6:55 am

Saying 'they are connected' is more or less saying they are all part of the same thing. The whole brain is interconnected, and while some parts have specialised tasks, the results of those tasks are shared with the rest.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Fri May 12, 2017 10:08 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Saying 'they are connected' is more or less saying they are all part of the same thing. The whole brain is interconnected, and while some parts have specialised tasks, the results of those tasks are shared with the rest.

Fair enough.

I would like to share an experience I had today. Had two wisdom teeth removed under local anesthetic, and as the whole process took 2+ hours I had time to ponder the way the anesthetic affected my behaviour. Once it took its full effect, my mouth was numb to the touch, however, I did notice from time to time that, although I felt little to no discomfort (maybe 5 tops on my pain scale), I caught my body a few times being very tense and clinging without my awareness of it. I wonder if somehow, although my conscious experience of the pain wasn't being felt, a signal was being sent to another part of the brain which unconsciously tensed my body. Either that or it could have just been due to the whole discomfort of the situation, but it did make me think.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Fri May 12, 2017 10:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Dimebag wrote:Personally I don't know, do you?
How can I know the scientific name for something that doesn't exist?

Dimebag wrote: What I do know is the brain integrates information from our senses
....apart from elements of that same information also sent to the autonomic nervous system, which doesn't go to the brain. Next time you feel hot and sweaty, ask yourself how you body knows to sweat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem

It may be wiki, but it's a start, at least an acknowledgement that the problem has been looked at by the scientific community, even if they haven't gone to the trouble of functionally defining certain terms.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Fri May 12, 2017 10:28 am

In regards to the binding problem, I sense that memory has some very important role to play in the linking of individual experiences, almost as if to form an ever changing scaffold over time, where pieces or memories of our previously experienced and conscious events can allow a structure of the very recent (maybe several seconds) past, from which we can use as a scratchpad (for lack of a better word) to draw upon and recall useful information, or call upon certain actions which might be useful. This is how I envisage working memory.

This is also no doubt one limitation we have, as we can only use information from our experience for a very short amount of time, otherwise we have to flag certain information for use later, which may or may not be recalled for several seconds, minutes or even longer. And so the invention of writing allowed us to transcend this limitation, and act as a more reliable reminding system than our own personal brain reminding systems.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri May 12, 2017 7:31 pm

Your 'binding problem', Dimebag, is just a part of the fact that the way the brain is connected is still under investigation. I suspect that, as a problem, it will disappear once details are revealed.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Sat May 13, 2017 11:32 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your 'binding problem', Dimebag, is just a part of the fact that the way the brain is connected is still under investigation. I suspect that, as a problem, it will disappear once details are revealed.

Well as they say, the devil is in the details Lance.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat May 13, 2017 12:28 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Steve

It is not only possible, but already has been done, to design a computer connected to a color video camera, so that the computer 'perceives' red. At least it responds to red according to programming. That is purely mechanistic. If you think the human brain does something mysteriously more, that is DEFINITELY magical thinking.

You seriously think that 00ff0000 (computer hex for Red) is the same as experiencing Red?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat May 13, 2017 12:45 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:You see, quantum mechanics is the name given to a set of specific phenomena. You seem totally unable to say which exact phenomena from that set, you are invoking. You are simply throwing the entire set into your fuzzy claims to make your claims sound scientific. :lol:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Wikapedia page for Quantum Consciousness says: The Quantum Mind or Quantum Consciousness group of hypotheses propose that Classical Mechanics cannot explain Consciousness.

So your theory is so well developed that you are now able to read a wikipedia page about it? :roll:

It was Roger Penrose, in The Emperor's New Mind who postulated that consciousness cannot be measured at any exact moment, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It has nothing to do with the brain evolving the cognitive representation of certain light wave frequencies as red.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

Let's try again...What is your exact working theory for "red" and what exact phenomena from quantum mechanics are you invoking?

The Inter Mind model specifically says that we do not know how Consciousness works. The Inter Mind model is a framework for studying Consciousness. I hope someday somebody will tell me how Consciousness works. You continue to misrepresent what I say about QM. I only say that it should be looked at. I devised an experiment that specifically tries to test an aspect of Consciousness as related to QM principles. See the experiment explanation at http://bit.ly/1rybEEi . The purpose of the Experiment was mostly to show that this type of Experiment was possible. The results were mostly negative. I would like to refine this Experiment with more sensitive electronics when I get the time some day. That's it.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat May 13, 2017 12:55 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Red exists without there being 650 nm wavelengths. Red is a Conscious thing not a wavelength thing.
Why am I doing all the work? You don't seem to know anything about your chosen topic.

Read this and tell me what the conclusion is.....
Gene Therapy Gives Monkeys Color Vision
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/09/ ... lor-vision

Did the male monkeys have red green cones....No,
Did the male monkeys have the neural pathways to cognitively recognise red green....Yes.
Is Red Green therefore a simple evolved physiological cognition device that exists in our DNA? Yes.

This is still just addressing the Easy Problem of Consciousness. You can test the Monkeys and find out they can distinguish colors better. You do not know what the Monkeys are Experiencing and you cannot explain how they Experience it. That's the unsolved David Chalmers Hard Problem of Consciousness. I'm interested in solving the Hard Problem.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat May 13, 2017 12:58 pm

Dimebag wrote:My question is, how does the brain combine all our conscious experiences into a single shared stream, when the conscious elements may be separated .... Where do they "come together" in the brain as our "unified stream of consciousness"? Which particular location of the brain do all these conscious elements combine to be blended and coalesced into a single field? If we can't point to any specific point, then we either have to admit there is a very important aspect of consciousness we have no idea about, or must start looking at how these "models" in the brain, which represent experiences, which are separated from one another, can somehow be combined and experienced as one unified experience.

Yes, that's the Binding Problem of Consciousness. That's why I have suggested that there must be some more Processing somewhere. I put it in the Inter Mind in the model.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Sun May 14, 2017 10:16 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Dimebag wrote:My question is, how does the brain combine all our conscious experiences into a single shared stream, when the conscious elements may be separated .... Where do they "come together" in the brain as our "unified stream of consciousness"? Which particular location of the brain do all these conscious elements combine to be blended and coalesced into a single field? If we can't point to any specific point, then we either have to admit there is a very important aspect of consciousness we have no idea about, or must start looking at how these "models" in the brain, which represent experiences, which are separated from one another, can somehow be combined and experienced as one unified experience.

Yes, that's the Binding Problem of Consciousness. That's why I have suggested that there must be some more Processing somewhere. I put it in the Inter Mind in the model.

No doubt there is more processing going on; what I am interested in is the way in which neurones can send information, via a neural code. To this day, we don't really understand how the brain stores information, how it transmits it, and how it disseminated it to many different parts of the brain. We know neurons transmit codes, and they can apparently transmit both analogue and digital, but we don't understand how informations is stored, used, etc. we need to probe the most basic of networks and understand exactly what is going on, how the brain forms things, such as memories, new concepts. Currently the way we study the brain as if we were opening up a computer, taking a look at one of the components such as the motherboard and trying to understand how the software works, how the operating system stores files, based on intercepting random bits of data.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun May 14, 2017 11:56 am

Dimebag wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Dimebag wrote:My question is, how does the brain combine all our conscious experiences into a single shared stream, when the conscious elements may be separated .... Where do they "come together" in the brain as our "unified stream of consciousness"? Which particular location of the brain do all these conscious elements combine to be blended and coalesced into a single field? If we can't point to any specific point, then we either have to admit there is a very important aspect of consciousness we have no idea about, or must start looking at how these "models" in the brain, which represent experiences, which are separated from one another, can somehow be combined and experienced as one unified experience.

Yes, that's the Binding Problem of Consciousness. That's why I have suggested that there must be some more Processing somewhere. I put it in the Inter Mind in the model.

No doubt there is more processing going on; what I am interested in is the way in which neurones can send information, via a neural code. To this day, we don't really understand how the brain stores information, how it transmits it, and how it disseminated it to many different parts of the brain. We know neurons transmit codes, and they can apparently transmit both analogue and digital, but we don't understand how informations is stored, used, etc. we need to probe the most basic of networks and understand exactly what is going on, how the brain forms things, such as memories, new concepts. Currently the way we study the brain as if we were opening up a computer, taking a look at one of the components such as the motherboard and trying to understand how the software works, how the operating system stores files, based on intercepting random bits of data.

Yes we need to nail down exactly how the Brain does all the things it does with that Neural activity. My interest is in how Consciousness can arise from all the Neural activity. I try to make it simple and simply ask how is it that we Experience the color Red? (It's a classic Philosophical question.) I first look at everything we know about Neural activity and I don't find any path to the Experience of Red coming from the Neural activity. There's only two things we know for sure: 1) Neurons for Red fire, 2) I Experience Red. For a lot of people these two steps explain it all. For them there is nothing else to study. To me there has to be a step 1.5) that explains how the Red happens when the Neural activity happens. It is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

I try to convey to people the special nature of something like the Experience of the Color Red. I have come to realize that Red is almost a new kind of Substance. It is unlike any Matter or Energy that Science knows about. But it is a thing in itself. It's not some illusion. It's not just an artifact of Neural activity. It has it's own existence. But what is it? I am forced by the complete lack of any help from Science to say that it must actually be some new aspect of Science. I propose a Conscious Space for it to exist in and a Conscious Mind to Experience it. Again, I am forced into this Dualistic approach by the lack of any known Scientific explanations.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 15, 2017 12:20 am

Dimebag wrote: What I do know is the brain integrates information from our senses, for if that information is not integrated, we can be aware of certain aspects of our senses but not others. There are obviously brain structures which combine all this information, would you disagree with that? I propose that is how we achieve a "single stream" of consciousness, and not useless bits of information which can't be used by other parts of the brain.


I previously suggested to Steve that good evidence probably comes from studying our evolutionary past and by examination of legacy proteins manufactured by specialist cells. Rods in animal eyes evolved first and receive light amplitude. They resulted in an existing mechanism to send information to our minds eye's spatial vision field. Cones, which receive colour are variants of Rods and their mechanism had to be integrated to that existing pathway established by Rods. Therefore it would seem to be a waste of time to ask why "red" is the cognitive representation of a particular wavelength before asking if "white" was the simpler cognitive representation of all wavelength amplitudes.

It does appear cones simply modify or work with rods. As Red has the lowest amplitude it needs more cones to even out the picture and that's why 64% of all cones are red, 34% are green and only 2% are blue. Our monochrome Rods are complimenting the electrochemical receipt of frequencies yet in our minds eye we still see deep red, deep green and deep blue, rather than washed out colours.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon May 15, 2017 2:05 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Yes we need to nail down exactly how the Brain does all the things it does with that Neural activity. My interest is in how Consciousness can arise from all the Neural activity. I try to make it simple and simply ask how is it that we Experience the color Red? (It's a classic Philosophical question.) I first look at everything we know about Neural activity and I don't find any path to the Experience of Red coming from the Neural activity. There's only two things we know for sure: 1) Neurons for Red fire, 2) I Experience Red. For a lot of people these two steps explain it all. For them there is nothing else to study. To me there has to be a step 1.5) that explains how the Red happens when the Neural activity happens. It is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

I try to convey to people the special nature of something like the Experience of the Color Red. I have come to realize that Red is almost a new kind of Substance. It is unlike any Matter or Energy that Science knows about. But it is a thing in itself. It's not some illusion. It's not just an artifact of Neural activity. It has it's own existence. But what is it? I am forced by the complete lack of any help from Science to say that it must actually be some new aspect of Science. I propose a Conscious Space for it to exist in and a Conscious Mind to Experience it. Again, I am forced into this Dualistic approach by the lack of any known Scientific explanations.

I'm going to speak your language for the sake of briefness and clarity here SteveKlinko
I agree it seems like what you describe as CL, CS, etc, must be something science doesn't yet understand. it's interesting that certain experiences such as thought, are hybrids of the senses.... Such as imagining something, such as an apple. When we imagine an apple, we hear the word apple in our CS(as you call it), we receive brief CL imagery of an apple, but we also receive "impressions" such as freshness, crunchiness, healthy, etc. The same could be said of memories, where certain people, places, feelings are presented to us, all without the input of the sense organs themselves, they are produced entirely in the brain.

What I wonder though is, what is it that forms the differences in the senses? They are so distinct, and yet, they can all to some extent be experienced without their sensory mechanisms. CL, CS, smell, touch, they are all so different, yet no doubt involve the brains models of itself. Maybe the experience of CL, driven by PL, and CL driven by NL share a mechanism, my inclination is to the models of that which are being experienced. When we experience CL from PL, the PL --> NL --> CL. When we experience CL from NL alone, PM --> NL --> CL, the last step between NL and CL is obviously the mechanism used for creating all conscious experience. This is where you have placed the intermind, if I'm not mistaken, the step between neuronal modelling and experience of those models.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri May 19, 2017 12:19 pm

Dimebag wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Yes we need to nail down exactly how the Brain does all the things it does with that Neural activity. My interest is in how Consciousness can arise from all the Neural activity. I try to make it simple and simply ask how is it that we Experience the color Red? (It's a classic Philosophical question.) I first look at everything we know about Neural activity and I don't find any path to the Experience of Red coming from the Neural activity. There's only two things we know for sure: 1) Neurons for Red fire, 2) I Experience Red. For a lot of people these two steps explain it all. For them there is nothing else to study. To me there has to be a step 1.5) that explains how the Red happens when the Neural activity happens. It is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

I try to convey to people the special nature of something like the Experience of the Color Red. I have come to realize that Red is almost a new kind of Substance. It is unlike any Matter or Energy that Science knows about. But it is a thing in itself. It's not some illusion. It's not just an artifact of Neural activity. It has it's own existence. But what is it? I am forced by the complete lack of any help from Science to say that it must actually be some new aspect of Science. I propose a Conscious Space for it to exist in and a Conscious Mind to Experience it. Again, I am forced into this Dualistic approach by the lack of any known Scientific explanations.

I'm going to speak your language for the sake of briefness and clarity here SteveKlinko
I agree it seems like what you describe as CL, CS, etc, must be something science doesn't yet understand. it's interesting that certain experiences such as thought, are hybrids of the senses.... Such as imagining something, such as an apple. When we imagine an apple, we hear the word apple in our CS(as you call it), we receive brief CL imagery of an apple, but we also receive "impressions" such as freshness, crunchiness, healthy, etc. The same could be said of memories, where certain people, places, feelings are presented to us, all without the input of the sense organs themselves, they are produced entirely in the brain.

What I wonder though is, what is it that forms the differences in the senses? They are so distinct, and yet, they can all to some extent be experienced without their sensory mechanisms. CL, CS, smell, touch, they are all so different, yet no doubt involve the brains models of itself. Maybe the experience of CL, driven by PL, and CL driven by NL share a mechanism, my inclination is to the models of that which are being experienced. When we experience CL from PL, the PL --> NL --> CL. When we experience CL from NL alone, PM --> NL --> CL, the last step between NL and CL is obviously the mechanism used for creating all conscious experience. This is where you have placed the intermind, if I'm not mistaken, the step between neuronal modelling and experience of those models.

Exactly. Very Good. Thank you for reading The Inter Mind. Yes that is the Explanatory Gap. I just say that it is a Processing Gap and that there must be some aspect of Mind that we haven't accounted for yet. I call that missing processing aspect the Inter Mind. I say it could be some as of yet undiscovered phenomenon in the PM. I also leave open the possibility that it could be something new.

I think that Conscious experience is such a special and different thing from anything we know about Matter and Energy in the Physical World that we have to at least be open to the possibility that Consciousness could be some new principle of Science. I like to concentrate my studies on the experience of Light and even more specifically the experience of the color Red. I might not have enough imagination but I can not imagine how any kind of Neural firings, connections, feedbacks, resonances, models, etc. is ever going to explain the Red experience. Red is a whole different Category of phenomenon. Think about the Redness of the Red. I think that when we truly understand Red we will understand it all.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9855
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri May 19, 2017 11:11 pm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... ce+News%29

All of which, Steve, are examples of magical thinking. We do not need any new principle of science. The reference above is to the discovery that social behaviour is the result of neurons firing in a specific region of the brain. There is absolutely no reason whatever to believe that consciousness is any different, or that the experience of perceiving the colour red is any different. It is all electrochemical activity in networks of neurons.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests