The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sat May 20, 2017 1:56 am

And it doesn't minimize what you're experiencing as a result. It's jarring to embrace an that's so counterintuitive, but in science it's not about what is intuitive, it's about the evidence. And how you test it.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sat May 20, 2017 2:06 am

You don't have to take my word for it steve.
But it's like you're trying to rewrite the rules for chess and saying we've been playing the game wrong this whole time.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat May 20, 2017 12:54 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170518143858.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+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.

I still think you don't appreciate the special nature of something like the experience of Red. I have found the experience of Red to be unlike anything in the known world of Science. It's not Magical to suspect that there must be some new Scientific principle for some New phenomenon. It may be correlated with Neural Activity but the experience is a thing in and of itself. We need to concentrate on the experience itself not the cause of the experience.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat May 20, 2017 12:59 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:You don't have to take my word for it steve.
But it's like you're trying to rewrite the rules for chess and saying we've been playing the game wrong this whole time.

But were not playing chess. We know what the rules of chess are. We are playing "Lets understand the Universe". We are naïve if we think we know what all the rules are for that..

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sat May 20, 2017 1:36 pm

Did you miss the metaphor for science in that whole deal? Purhaps I should have been more explicit.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat May 20, 2017 5:11 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:Did you miss the metaphor for science in that whole deal? Purhaps I should have been more explicit.

Apparently you didn't understand that I thought the Metaphor didn't apply.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8602
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat May 20, 2017 7:28 pm

Steve

There is nothing special about red. A computer can be programmed to recognise red and respond to it. A human does the same. The response is a bit more sophisticated, involving an internal process before responding, but it is still non magical.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sat May 20, 2017 9:16 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:Did you miss the metaphor for science in that whole deal? Purhaps I should have been more explicit.

Apparently you didn't understand that I thought the Metaphor didn't apply.

The point of it wasn't chess itself but the fact you're ignoring explanations for what you were asking. And insisted that we should infer from induction to find out what the subjective​ experience red is about.
You are rejecting what science is saying outright and imposing your own method that's far from reliable.
I'd say my metaphor is on point.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8602
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat May 20, 2017 10:16 pm

Definition of magic

"an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source" 



Steve is suffering from a blind spot in his understanding. This is demonstrated by his insistance that neuron networks cannot account for an appreciation of red. In fact, there is no reason at all why they cannot. I suspect that Steve is so personally committed to his idea of a magical mind that he automatically rejects a more scientific approach.

Steve

Tribespeople in Africa have been known, when seeing modern technology for the first time, to declare it magic. There has even been the danger that they see it as evil magic and attempt to kill the person giving the demonstration. People who cannot understand something tend to call it magic.

You have tried to cover up that reaction by calling consciousness something science does not yet understand, but your idea of the inter-mind is purest magic. Just because you cannot understand the power of neural networks does not mean they do not exist, or do what they do.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Sun May 21, 2017 3:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Definition of magic

"an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source" 



Steve is suffering from a blind spot in his understanding. This is demonstrated by his insistance that neuron networks cannot account for an appreciation of red. In fact, there is no reason at all why they cannot. I suspect that Steve is so personally committed to his idea of a magical mind that he automatically rejects a more scientific approach.

Steve

Tribespeople in Africa have been known, when seeing modern technology for the first time, to declare it magic. There has even been the danger that they see it as evil magic and attempt to kill the person giving the demonstration. People who cannot understand something tend to call it magic.

You have tried to cover up that reaction by calling consciousness something science does not yet understand, but your idea of the inter-mind is purest magic. Just because you cannot understand the power of neural networks does not mean they do not exist, or do what they do.

Neuroscience has not yet shown how neural networks might make an experience become conscious. There are a few theories, such as the integrated information theory, which attempt to lay some kind of groundwork in order to explain how the brain creates consciousness, however I am yet to see any theory which clearly explains how through operation of particular brain structures in particular ways leads one thing to be conscious and EXPERIENCED SUBJECTIVELY, and other contents of the same mechanisms not to be.

Science tends to be very wary of introducing entirely new and different frameworks to explain phenomena, but it is not uncommon, and when it happens, it tends to usher in a new way of thinking about previously "understood" and "explained" phenomena, in a new way. Take for example the transition from Newtonian physics to general relativity. The scientific community were skeptical of Einsteins proposals, but he eventually convinced them, through predictions based on his theories which have been confirmed time and again.

Maybe it will take great lengths before a theory which satisfies our need for an explanation of consciousness which actually includes that which it attempts to explain, look at the 'Elan vital' or life force which was thought to embody all living things, before it was understood exactly how inert matter could, with the right combinations, become animated as if by some magical force. That is the kind of explanation we need, and it took the invention of biology, chemistry, and genetics, (and no doubt many more very specialised fields) to get where we are today in our understanding of how life forms from the building blocks of life.

Do we currently understand the building blocks of consciousness? Do we have the frameworks in place to view these building blocks and understand how they fit together, interact, and produce consciousness? I think we have one particular framework, neuroscience, which helps us understand the building blocks of the brain, neurons, and the ways they interact to produce different brain regions which perform different tasks. But there is so much we don't understand, we are probably missing entire specialisations which are required to make headway on understanding enough about the brain in order to put all those pieces together, and "explain away" consciousness. I think most people wanting an explanation who currently aren't satisfied with our current knowledge of consciousness, turn to magic not out of their love of magical thinking, but because they can't see how consciousness can be explain based on what we currently know about the brain and how it operates.

I am happy to reserve judgement, and put faith in science and its ability to, with time, find answers to the hard questions. i do, however, like to speculate, as unless we try to attack problems in understanding from different angles, it can be difficult to chip away to the real solution.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8602
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun May 21, 2017 5:09 am

Dimebag

I understand what you are saying. But you need to be careful with that line of reasoning, so that you do not end up saying, in effect, if we do not understand it, it must be magic.

The connectome project has a long way to go before the connections in the human brain are fully detailed, and understood. But that does not mean they will not be. Consciousness, based on current data, is almost certainly a matter of complex circuitry inside the neural networks of the brain.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7604
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Sun May 21, 2017 7:36 am

I've been following this thread with growing amusement (coupled with a bit of horror). SteveKlinko is seriously proposing something most humans have managed to sort out in their teens. There is no Red (whether you put in that initial capital or not). There is no deeper level of reality connected with the nature of sound or light. Why would there be? (No, don't answer that - it's because we can't go and buy a bag of sound or a jar of light). Red is what we perceive when light of a certain set of frequencies enters our eyes. It is part of a continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation - no boundaries to speak of other than human classification (because that's what we do). What we call sound is part of a continuous range of vibrations in a medium (no - not that kind of medium). We are sensitive to light and sound because that's what was needed for an organism to survive. That radiation and those vibrations have sod all to do with us - they were around before we were and they'll be around long after we've gone.
Actually getting to know something useful about light and sound does mean work, though. There's the nitty-gritty, don't you think? Can't be bothered with physics - it's too hard. Let's make some {!#%@} up and sit around like nodding Buddhas being oh-so-wise. What's the world coming to, eh? Perhaps surgeons should suddenly decide that spraying chicken blood around before an operation would be a good idea. After all, if you can think of it, no one can argue with you, can they?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun May 21, 2017 8:27 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:Did you miss the metaphor for science in that whole deal? Purhaps I should have been more explicit.

Apparently you didn't understand that I thought the Metaphor didn't apply.

The point of it wasn't chess itself but the fact you're ignoring explanations for what you were asking. And insisted that we should infer from induction to find out what the subjective​ experience red is about.
You are rejecting what science is saying outright and imposing your own method that's far from reliable.
I'd say my metaphor is on point.

Fact is Science is not saying anything about the experience of Red. It is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. The Hard Problem is not even slightly solved yet. You can't just say Neurons fire then you see Red and that explains it. That's the only thing that Science is able to say. There is no Scientific explanation of Consciousness yet.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun May 21, 2017 8:33 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Definition of magic

"an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source" 



Steve is suffering from a blind spot in his understanding. This is demonstrated by his insistance that neuron networks cannot account for an appreciation of red. In fact, there is no reason at all why they cannot. I suspect that Steve is so personally committed to his idea of a magical mind that he automatically rejects a more scientific approach.

Steve

Tribespeople in Africa have been known, when seeing modern technology for the first time, to declare it magic. There has even been the danger that they see it as evil magic and attempt to kill the person giving the demonstration. People who cannot understand something tend to call it magic.

You have tried to cover up that reaction by calling consciousness something science does not yet understand, but your idea of the inter-mind is purest magic. Just because you cannot understand the power of neural networks does not mean they do not exist, or do what they do.

What is Red? Is it Energy? Is it Matter? Is it an aspect of Space? If it is explainable by Science there must be something from Science that it is. What is it?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun May 21, 2017 8:50 pm

Poodle wrote:I've been following this thread with growing amusement (coupled with a bit of horror). SteveKlinko is seriously proposing something most humans have managed to sort out in their teens. There is no Red (whether you put in that initial capital or not). There is no deeper level of reality connected with the nature of sound or light. Why would there be? (No, don't answer that - it's because we can't go and buy a bag of sound or a jar of light). Red is what we perceive when light of a certain set of frequencies enters our eyes. It is part of a continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation - no boundaries to speak of other than human classification (because that's what we do). What we call sound is part of a continuous range of vibrations in a medium (no - not that kind of medium). We are sensitive to light and sound because that's what was needed for an organism to survive. That radiation and those vibrations have sod all to do with us - they were around before we were and they'll be around long after we've gone.
Actually getting to know something useful about light and sound does mean work, though. There's the nitty-gritty, don't you think? Can't be bothered with physics - it's too hard. Let's make some {!#%@} up and sit around like nodding Buddhas being oh-so-wise. What's the world coming to, eh? Perhaps surgeons should suddenly decide that spraying chicken blood around before an operation would be a good idea. After all, if you can think of it, no one can argue with you, can they?

I think you probably just don't understand the Easy Problem and Hard Problem of Consciousness. Easy problem is virtually solved. There is actually no clue to how you solve the Hard Problem. Are you actually denying the existence of the classic Hard Problem and therefore the Explanatory Gap? You must be one of those ,,, Neurons fire ... I see Red ... that explains it kind of person. That's not enough anymore.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7604
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Sun May 21, 2017 9:01 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:I think you probably just don't understand the Easy Problem and Hard Problem of Consciousness. Easy problem is virtually solved. There is actually no clue to how you solve the Hard Problem. Are you actually denying the existence of the classic Hard Problem and therefore the Explanatory Gap? You must be one of those ,,, Neurons fire ... I see Red ... that explains it kind of person. That's not enough anymore.

For what it's worth, I think Chalmers is jumping off the edge of a cliff. There is still nothing to establish that the hard problem is a problem at all. A simple radio receiver makes a fine job of discriminating very finely between between differing radio frequencies and translating them into audio frequencies. It does that all by itself - it's a Hard Problem automaton. Oh - and it was designed by humans.
What problem?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun May 21, 2017 9:13 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:I think you probably just don't understand the Easy Problem and Hard Problem of Consciousness. Easy problem is virtually solved. There is actually no clue to how you solve the Hard Problem. Are you actually denying the existence of the classic Hard Problem and therefore the Explanatory Gap? You must be one of those ,,, Neurons fire ... I see Red ... that explains it kind of person. That's not enough anymore.

For what it's worth, I think Chalmers is jumping off the edge of a cliff. There is still nothing to establish that the hard problem is a problem at all. A simple radio receiver makes a fine job of discriminating very finely between between differing radio frequencies and translating them into audio frequencies. It does that all by itself - it's a Hard Problem automaton. Oh - and it was designed by humans.
What problem?

That says it all. Thank you for clarifying your reasoning. Of course ... there is no Hard Problem!

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8602
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun May 21, 2017 11:01 pm

Steve

The Hard Problem exists in your mind and nowhere else. A computer, as I said before, can detect and respond to red. We have neural networks instead of transistors. Otherwise, not much difference.

What is not known is the full detail of how that neural network is wired together. Every year scientists learn more of that. If there is a Hard Problem, it is the problem of deciphering a very complicated wiring engine, the human brain.

Your inter-mind is magic and superstition. Pure and simple.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon May 22, 2017 2:41 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Steve

The Hard Problem exists in your mind and nowhere else. A computer, as I said before, can detect and respond to red. We have neural networks instead of transistors. Otherwise, not much difference.

What is not known is the full detail of how that neural network is wired together. Every year scientists learn more of that. If there is a Hard Problem, it is the problem of deciphering a very complicated wiring engine, the human brain.

Your inter-mind is magic and superstition. Pure and simple.

Lance, the human brain can also detect and respond to red... All without any experience of red occurring. Take for example driving a car, as you approach a set of lights the light changes from green to red, and as the change happens, science tells us that the detection of red allows a signal to be sent to the centres responsible for motor action, either the planting of the foot on accelerator, or slamming on the brakes, but this apparently happens before we are even consciously aware of it, even if for only milliseconds. The detecting and acting can become independent form the experiencing of red. Take also blindsight, where people swear they can not detect any stimulus, and yet when they are asked certain questions about whether a certain stimulus is present or not, even just as a guess, it is always better than chance... The brain detects the stimulus, but has, through damage to the areas in question, become decoupled from the experiencing of the stimulus. This is pretty direct evidence to support the notion that though the retina can detect a stimulus, and it can be responded to with action, it may not be experienced, and therefore that the detection and experiencing are two different things, two different brain processes.

It may not be magical, but it is a clear case to seriously consider conscious experience needs much more attention before we can say it is fully and correctly understood, from a scientific standpoint.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8602
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon May 22, 2017 4:03 am

Dimebag

No one has suggested that the whole process is understood. Far from it. But gaps in our knowledge are no reason to start suggesting magic.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24803
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 22, 2017 4:06 am

Dimebag wrote: Lance, the human brain can also detect and respond to red... All without any experience of red occurring.
The human eye receives photon wavelengths of 400–484 THz and represents this as "red" in our mind's eye. The human tongue receives chemical information for sodium chloride and represents this as "salty" in our minds. The human nose revives combinations of molecules that represent "poo" in our minds.

There is no such thing as "salty" or "red" or "poo smell combination" in the environment. Theses are simply evolved representations to allow our brains to identify and assess information from the outside environment. They are all evolved representations that were most effective in offering an evolutionary advantage trade-off.

To discover why Red, Salty and poo combinations arose as the mind's representations, is a matter of first exploring how they arose in evolution, what other representational systems exist in other living creatures and the normal physics as to how they work.

I can't explain why a young girls bottom is sexier than another fat girls bottom, but I know it is hard wired in my head and carried in my genes, just like red, salty and poo small combination.

Steven needs to explain how normal molecular DNA carries these evolved behaviours and can magically create some new sort of special magic to make for some new magical force, that he claims exists. Frankly, it is quite obvious they are all just normal evolved electro-chemical adaptions. There is no magic in "red".


Dimebag wrote: but this apparently happens before we are even consciously aware of it, .. This is pretty... direct evidence to support the notion that though the retina can detect a stimulus, and it can be responded to with action, it may not be experienced, and therefore that the detection and experiencing are two different things, two different brain processes.
I fundamental agree. A shrimp will swim towards light with no conscious thoughts about light at all. Evolution has resulted with animals having more decision making processes than shrimp.

I can't exactly map every evolved connection but I know what's going on.
:D :D

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7604
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Poodle » Mon May 22, 2017 12:16 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:I can't explain why a young girls bottom is sexier than another fat girls bottom, but I know it is hard wired in my head and carried in my genes ...

It may be in your genes, you Ozzy pervert, but I like my Queen songs ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMnjF1O4eH0

... but - does anyone know what a 'red fried light' really is, or how Mr. Mercury would even know it was red?
(Joke, people - just a joke).

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Cadmusteeth » Mon May 22, 2017 12:43 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:Did you miss the metaphor for science in that whole deal? Purhaps I should have been more explicit.

Apparently you didn't understand that I thought the Metaphor didn't apply.

The point of it wasn't chess itself but the fact you're ignoring explanations for what you were asking. And insisted that we should infer from induction to find out what the subjective​ experience red is about.
You are rejecting what science is saying outright and imposing your own method that's far from reliable.
I'd say my metaphor is on point.

Fact is Science is not saying anything about the experience of Red. It is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. The Hard Problem is not even slightly solved yet. You can't just say Neurons fire then you see Red and that explains it. That's the only thing that Science is able to say. There is no Scientific explanation of Consciousness yet.

You're proving my point.
Last edited by Cadmusteeth on Tue May 23, 2017 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24803
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 22, 2017 11:56 pm

Steve has been avoiding the obvious.

He has to accept that the mind seeing red for certain photon wave frequencies, is genetically carried on DNA.

He can't show how the normal protein production templates of DNA can create any new sort of magical force.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue May 23, 2017 10:46 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Steve

The Hard Problem exists in your mind and nowhere else. A computer, as I said before, can detect and respond to red. We have neural networks instead of transistors. Otherwise, not much difference.

What is not known is the full detail of how that neural network is wired together. Every year scientists learn more of that. If there is a Hard Problem, it is the problem of deciphering a very complicated wiring engine, the human brain.

Your inter-mind is magic and superstition. Pure and simple.

It is mind boggling to me that you think a computer detecting Red is the same thing as experiencing Red. When a computer detects Red it is usually dealing with a number like hex 00ff0000. Where in that number is the experience of Red?

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue May 23, 2017 11:16 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Steve has been avoiding the obvious.

He has to accept that the mind seeing red for certain photon wave frequencies, is genetically carried on DNA.

He can't show how the normal protein production templates of DNA can create any new sort of magical force.

I start with the Experience of Red. I can understand that because I have been experiencing Red all my life. But I obviously understand Red in a different way than you do. Red to me is a different kind of thing than anything we know in Science. Is Red some kind of Matter? Is Red some kind of Energy? Is Red some aspect of Space? I'm talking about the Red of the Red. Red is a thing in itself. It's almost a type of substance.

I think I do understand your dilemma. You are not starting with the Red experience and then reverse engineering it from there. If you start with the Red there is no way you can logically say Neurons firing cause this. Think about your Red experience deeply. Understand the Red. Truly experience the Red. I think with time you will See it. But as long as you don't See it, I completely understand your thinking.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8602
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue May 23, 2017 11:26 pm

Steve

You are obsessed with the colour red.
There is no magic. I used the computer as an analogy. A computer uses a video camera to record red. We use the cones in our eyes. The computer uses wires to send a signal to the central processing unit to decipher the data, and report "red". We use the optic nerves to send a signal to our central processing unit, called the brain, to decipher the data.

Certainly we do not understand in any detail how the data is processed in the brain. But that understanding will come in the future. Lack of understanding is NEVER a reason to propose magic. We do not know how the Big Bang came to be, but only a religiously superstitious person will use a magical deity to 'explain' it. We do not need to propose a magical inter mind to explain how we perceive red. We just have to wait while neurophysiologists continue their work to decipher the connectome, and arrive at a proper scientific understanding.

All good skeptics look to science, not magic and superstition.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24803
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 24, 2017 1:24 am

SteveKlinko wrote: Red to me is a different kind of thing than anything we know in Science.
It is a normal evolved cognitive device, carried by DNA like "tastes salty", "that girl's bottom is cute" and "smells like poo". You keep failing to explain why it is new science.

SteveKlinko wrote: Is Red some kind of Matter? Is Red some kind of Energy?
It is a normal evolved cognitive device, carried by DNA like "tastes salty", "that girl's bottom is cute" and "smells like poo". You keep failing to explain why it is new science.

SteveKlinko wrote: I think I do understand your dilemma.
I don't have a dilemma. You do. It's called lack of education concerning evolution, physics and biology.

SteveKlinko wrote:. If you start with the Red there is no way you can logically say Neurons firing cause this.
Then what exactly are you claiming is going on other than neurons. We already know that the cones are connected to neurons. We already know, that "red" is just a cognitive adaption like "tastes salty" or "smells like poo".


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest