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 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:18 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:"The final picture can be fooled, and is sometimes modified by expectation, as witness what we see when we experience an optical illusion. Researchers have monitored brain activity during this process, and recorded the nerve activity involved in visual processing. The evidence is clear that nerve networks process the image.


Yep. I specifically linked Steve to a detailed science paper on that and he won't read it or even acknowledge it. Steve is here for religious reason and will not move away from his narrow religious construct. :D

Mind boggling! I have read all your links. I have been reading these kinds of studies for 20 years. They all have insight on some aspect of Neural processing. None explain Consciousness. You really think that this explains the Problem of how we experience Red?

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:28 pm

Do you Physicalists not See the Conscious Light Screen? Do you Physicalists really not See Red as a Conscious experience? If there are people that actually don't See the Screen or the Red, then I have to conclude that their Brains operate in a different mode than people that can See these things. I had always assumed that all people had the same Kind of Conscious experience. By Kind, I mean a Visual experience that floats out in front of them as in the Conscious Light Screen. Maybe there are human beings that actually don't have a Visual experience like the Conscious Light Screen but rather they detect at a more Neural level. These people might be the Philosophical Zombies, or p-Zombies, from the Philosophy of Consciousness. It might be that the Physicalists on this thread are p-Zombies so of course they would not actually have a Conscious experience at all. No wonder they are stuck in the Neurons. There is no Conscious experience for them to study.
Last edited by SteveKlinko on Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
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 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:12 pm

There's only one way to spell physicalist.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10647
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:33 pm

Ha, ha: "p-Zombies."

I often post one of the early to middle stages of descent into insanity is creating one's own vocabulary.

THE DICTIONARY. A great source of wisdom.

EDIT: I must add: Jo is an exception. To what, how, and why.......how do we really know? He /JO==you do work at it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:54 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
LunaNik wrote:You insist on discounting the organic functioning of the brain in favor of mystical, magical thinking. It's ridiculous. If we were at the point where we fully understand every region of the brain, every neurochemical, every process, and every function, that would be the point to look elsewhere. But we don't. You're jumping the gun and ignoring science for emotional reasons.

I'm only saying that you would think that with all the vast knowledge we have acquired about the Brain over the last 100 years that there would be at least a clue as to how the Conscious experience works. You are looking for a Brain knowledge Singularity that will solve the Problem. I only say that we should entertain the possibility that the explanation for Conscious experience might not be completely in the Neurons. I never say that I know or think that it is definitely not in the Brain. I'm trying to get people to look out side the box.

With this comment, you show your ignorance of neuroscience. We have only made inroads into the functioning of the brain relatively recently. Since neurons are the structures by which information is communicated from the real world to our brains, and between regions of the brain, there is no valid reason for even entertaining the possibility that consciousness arises outside that communication network. Certainly not until we have reached the point of thoroughly understanding how the brain itself works in all its complexities.

SteveKlinko wrote:1) Neurons fire
2) a Red Experience happens

The sole issue with your lack of comprehension, and with you deeming there is an elusive “hard problem,” is your refusal to recognize that Step One of the above-quoted process is not the simplistic binary switch you seem to think it is. “Neurons fire” does not equate to a light switch being either on or off. And neurons are not homogenous in size, shape, or electrochemical properties. Neurons can be classified by their polarity (4 types), location and shape (11 types), direction of signal (3 types), action on other neurons (3 types), discharge patterns (3 types), and neurotransmitter production (5 types). Use some basic math and think about the number of permutations available, and you've begun to grasp the complexity of neuronal variety.

So, when you say "neurons fire," are you referring to multipolar, efferent Purkinje neurons in the cerebellum that are GABAergic and send both excitatory and inhibitory signals depending upon their connections? Or are you talking about unipolar Brush neurons, excitatory glutamatergic interneurons in the cerebellar cortex? Perhaps you mean bipolar Spindle neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex? Maybe you didn't realize there were neurons in the retina itself. So, to which specific neurons are you referring? One specific type? More than one type? I'm guessing you don't have a {!#%@} clue, since you've consistently simplified the organic functioning of the brain, but needlessly complicated and mystified the conscious experience.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26586
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:14 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Do you Phisicalists really not See Red as a Conscious experience?
Steve, Stop running away from your errors.

We have already pointed out that the brain's use of colour to represent different wave frequencies is both conscious and subconscious, as we know that the brain adds colour to objects being thought about or being examined, based on memory.

It seems that we have now leaving you behind and have a better understanding that you do.
:D

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10061
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:37 am

Steve

Neurons firing is not associative.

You ARE those neurons firing. The essential you, the self, the ego, is just a bunch of neurons firing. I think you are religiously minded, and regard the essential self as being something higher and more spiritual. It is not. It is just a bunch of neurons. There is no existence for the essential self outside those neurons. You suffer from a limited ability to think. That limit causes you to fail to appreciate what a bunch of neurons can do and be.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26586
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:41 am

SteveKlinko wrote: You really think that this explains the Problem of how we experience Red?
Steve, the science paper clearly shows that the physical brain is adding red as a characteristic, from our memory of that object. That means "red" as a representation for a certain wave-frequency is part of the physical brain. I now realise you are struggling to understand what these various science papers are saying. .

SteveKlinko wrote:I have been reading these kinds of studies for 20 years
I think I have just explained why you have made no progress in 20 years. :D

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:32 pm

Poodle wrote:There's only one way to spell physicalist.

Good point. I'll fix it.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:39 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Ha, ha: "p-Zombies."

I often post one of the early to middle stages of descent into insanity is creating one's own vocabulary.

THE DICTIONARY. A great source of wisdom.

EDIT: I must add: Jo is an exception. To what, how, and why.......how do we really know? He /JO==you do work at it.

Wikipedia is good too:
A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that from the outside is indistinguishable from a normal human being but lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1] For example, if a philosophical zombie was poked with a sharp object it would not feel any pain sensation, yet could behave exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch", recoil from the stimulus, and say that it is feeling pain).

It is used in Thought experiments where you have to Think about things.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:48 pm

LunaNik wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
LunaNik wrote:You insist on discounting the organic functioning of the brain in favor of mystical, magical thinking. It's ridiculous. If we were at the point where we fully understand every region of the brain, every neurochemical, every process, and every function, that would be the point to look elsewhere. But we don't. You're jumping the gun and ignoring science for emotional reasons.

I'm only saying that you would think that with all the vast knowledge we have acquired about the Brain over the last 100 years that there would be at least a clue as to how the Conscious experience works. You are looking for a Brain knowledge Singularity that will solve the Problem. I only say that we should entertain the possibility that the explanation for Conscious experience might not be completely in the Neurons. I never say that I know or think that it is definitely not in the Brain. I'm trying to get people to look out side the box.

With this comment, you show your ignorance of neuroscience. We have only made inroads into the functioning of the brain relatively recently. Since neurons are the structures by which information is communicated from the real world to our brains, and between regions of the brain, there is no valid reason for even entertaining the possibility that consciousness arises outside that communication network. Certainly not until we have reached the point of thoroughly understanding how the brain itself works in all its complexities.

SteveKlinko wrote:1) Neurons fire
2) a Red Experience happens

The sole issue with your lack of comprehension, and with you deeming there is an elusive “hard problem,” is your refusal to recognize that Step One of the above-quoted process is not the simplistic binary switch you seem to think it is. “Neurons fire” does not equate to a light switch being either on or off. And neurons are not homogenous in size, shape, or electrochemical properties. Neurons can be classified by their polarity (4 types), location and shape (11 types), direction of signal (3 types), action on other neurons (3 types), discharge patterns (3 types), and neurotransmitter production (5 types). Use some basic math and think about the number of permutations available, and you've begun to grasp the complexity of neuronal variety.

So, when you say "neurons fire," are you referring to multipolar, efferent Purkinje neurons in the cerebellum that are GABAergic and send both excitatory and inhibitory signals depending upon their connections? Or are you talking about unipolar Brush neurons, excitatory glutamatergic interneurons in the cerebellar cortex? Perhaps you mean bipolar Spindle neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex? Maybe you didn't realize there were neurons in the retina itself. So, to which specific neurons are you referring? One specific type? More than one type? I'm guessing you don't have a {!#%@} clue, since you've consistently simplified the organic functioning of the brain, but needlessly complicated and mystified the conscious experience.

I have been all through this before. The point is that I am saying, any type of Neuron Firing, any collection of Neurons Firing, any complicated feedback of Neurons Firing , and etc., cannot explain the Conscious experience of Red. I thought by this time you would know that. I say Neurons Firing in a general sense.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:58 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Do you Phisicalists really not See Red as a Conscious experience?
Steve, Stop running away from your errors.

We have already pointed out that the brain's use of colour to represent different wave frequencies is both conscious and subconscious, as we know that the brain adds colour to objects being thought about or being examined, based on memory.

It seems that we have now leaving you behind and have a better understanding that you do.
:D
You say that Color is Conscious and Subconscious. You say the Brain adds Color to objects ... Yes but how do we experience the Color? Your words always try to hide the experience of Color. Your words are void of any explanation.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:04 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Steve

Neurons firing is not associative.

You ARE those neurons firing. The essential you, the self, the ego, is just a bunch of neurons firing. I think you are religiously minded, and regard the essential self as being something higher and more spiritual. It is not. It is just a bunch of neurons. There is no existence for the essential self outside those neurons. You suffer from a limited ability to think. That limit causes you to fail to appreciate what a bunch of neurons can do and be.

I agree I am Neurons Firing but I also am the Red experience. No one can explain how I am the Red Conscious Light experience. See "An Interesting Conclusion" section on the http://TheInterMind.com website. If the Red experience is inside the Neurons no one has shown that Yet.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:09 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: You really think that this explains the Problem of how we experience Red?
Steve, the science paper clearly shows that the physical brain is adding red as a characteristic, from our memory of that object. That means "red" as a representation for a certain wave-frequency is part of the physical brain. I now realise you are struggling to understand what these various science papers are saying. .

SteveKlinko wrote:I have been reading these kinds of studies for 20 years
I think I have just explained why you have made no progress in 20 years. :D

You have not shown how we experience the Red. You are talking about a Neural Correlate of Consciousness once again. That's the Easy Problem. You have an Explanatory Gap. The Hard Problem remains.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:51 pm

I think the Physicalist p-Zombie possibility could explain a lot of things with regard to the Dualist versus Physicalist, seemingly hopeless and unending, argument. The Physicalist really in fact doesn't experience the color Red in the same way a Dualist does. The Physicalist Conscious experience must be more at the Neural level. That explains why they can not get away from the Neurons and understand that Conscious experience is something very different and special. The Dualist experiences an extra level of Experience and Processing that the Dualist is not aware of. This is probably why the Physicalist perceives the Dualist talk of a Conscious Red experience as some Religious thing. They don't actually See it the way a Dualist does. The Physicalist will always hide the Conscious experience of Red in different words like, Model, Representation, Evolutionary Cognitive Tool, or that it is just some aspect of Memory Association. These words are void of the Conscious Red itself which they have never experienced. Amazingly, just saying these word and phrases seems to explain it all for them. There might really not be an Explanatory Gap or a Hard Problem for them since they don't have a Conscious experience of Red like the Dualists have. Physicalists detect Red of course and they are Conscious, but it must be a completely different kind of Consciousness than the Consciousness of a Dualist.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:30 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:1) Neurons fire
2) a Red Experience happens

LunaNik wrote:The sole issue with your lack of comprehension, and with you deeming there is an elusive “hard problem,” is your refusal to recognize that Step One of the above-quoted process is not the simplistic binary switch you seem to think it is. “Neurons fire” does not equate to a light switch being either on or off. And neurons are not homogenous in size, shape, or electrochemical properties. Neurons can be classified by their polarity (4 types), location and shape (11 types), direction of signal (3 types), action on other neurons (3 types), discharge patterns (3 types), and neurotransmitter production (5 types). Use some basic math and think about the number of permutations available, and you've begun to grasp the complexity of neuronal variety.

So, when you say "neurons fire," are you referring to multipolar, efferent Purkinje neurons in the cerebellum that are GABAergic and send both excitatory and inhibitory signals depending upon their connections? Or are you talking about unipolar Brush neurons, excitatory glutamatergic interneurons in the cerebellar cortex? Perhaps you mean bipolar Spindle neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex? Maybe you didn't realize there were neurons in the retina itself. So, to which specific neurons are you referring? One specific type? More than one type? I'm guessing you don't have a {!#%@} clue, since you've consistently simplified the organic functioning of the brain, but needlessly complicated and mystified the conscious experience.

SteveKlinko wrote:I have been all through this before. The point is that I am saying, any type of Neuron Firing, any collection of Neurons Firing, any complicated feedback of Neurons Firing , and etc., cannot explain the Conscious experience of Red. I thought by this time you would know that. I say Neurons Firing in a general sense.
I know what you've been saying, and I'm saying that your lack of understanding of the complexity of the brain has led you to frame an artificial argument. You continue to insist that "the conscious experience" is so infinitely complex that it can't possibly be generated by "neurons firing." It's clear from your repeated contention that you lack comprehension of the existing knowledge on neurons.

There is no such concept as "neurons firing in a general sense." Would the above mentioned Purkinje neurons contribute to the experience of red? No. They're the reason you can type "experience of red." And stop typing it, since they notify your muscles to contract and relax. How about the Brush neurons? Again, no. They're the reason you're not walking around with a permanent concussion from falling over. Maybe the Spindle neurons have something to do with it? Yep. Go look up "Spindle neurons" and see why humans, cetaceans, and some hominids are special. And you'll have a piece of your puzzle. Then keep studying neuroscience...and stop wasting our time with magical thinking.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:40 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:The Physicalist really in fact doesn't experience the color Red in the same way a Dualist does. The Physicalist Conscious experience must be more at the Neural level. That explains why they can not get away from the Neurons and understand that Conscious experience is something very different and special. The Dualist experiences an extra level of Experience and Processing that the Dualist is not aware of.

Image
Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
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 » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:02 pm

Steve - You're flying in the face of Occam's Razor. That's OK - but if you're going to do it successfully, you need to provide a reasonable explanation for your introduction of 'unnecessary' entities. You THINK (you have failed to establish this) that there is an as yet unexplained mechanism governing our recognition of 'red'. So stop trying to justify your argument and, instead, establish that there is good reason to accept this particular unnecessary entity. I can't see it from your posts thus far and, it seems, nor can anyone else here. You appear to be arguing from an emotional basis - you simply prefer your personal viewpoint. Understandable though that is, you are forgetting that it's not how things work. You must DEMONSTRATE that the perception of red is unique on an individual level. You have failed to do it so far.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:29 pm

Poodle wrote:Steve - You're flying in the face of Occam's Razor. That's OK - but if you're going to do it successfully, you need to provide a reasonable explanation for your introduction of 'unnecessary' entities. You THINK (you have failed to establish this) that there is an as yet unexplained mechanism governing our recognition of 'red'. So stop trying to justify your argument and, instead, establish that there is good reason to accept this particular unnecessary entity. I can't see it from your posts thus far and, it seems, nor can anyone else here. You appear to be arguing from an emotional basis - you simply prefer your personal viewpoint. Understandable though that is, you are forgetting that it's not how things work. You must DEMONSTRATE that the perception of red is unique on an individual level. You have failed to do it so far.

Occam's razor should be invoked when there are two competing hypothesis, the simpler of which should be accepted. Both hypotheses need to be testable. The hypothesis from the reductionist materialist perspective is that conscious experience IS certain kinds of neural processing. Now how exactly do we test that? When you don't even understand the mechanism by which certain kinds of neural processing becomes conscious experience? The hypothesis is as yet untestable and therefore not even truly a hypothesis. We shouldn't even be having this conversation yet. As to Steves Claim, I don't entirely understand it as I don't believe his theory involves explaining HOW this intermind produces conscious experience. Both theories come short, and indeed so do all theories postulated so far. There is a shortfall in our current understanding of the mechanism which produces consciousness as well as our understanding of what conscious experience is at its identity level. We have a phenomenon we can only experience from our own perspective, we have no way of quantifying it, objectively measuring it, and can't find the causal connections relating it to neural processing. That is where we stand. Neuroscience will plow forward and continue to carve out the space between conscious experience and the neural substrate which produces is, until, I fear, we are left with a consciousness sized gap. When that happens, we will need to decide if what we know about the neural basis and its operation, sufficiently explains what conscious experience is, and how it is produced. If we get to that stage and it seems consciousness does not follow logically from our understanding of its neural basis, we will have to concede there are hidden variables responsible for the causal connection.
Last edited by Dimebag on Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
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 » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:57 pm

Ahhhhh - too much wine. I've deleted the post I made here..

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26586
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:52 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote: We have already pointed out that the brain's use of colour to represent different wave frequencies is both conscious and subconscious, as we know that the brain adds colour to objects being thought about or being examined, based on memory. We now know "red" comes from the normal physical brain. :D
SteveKlinko wrote:You say that Color is Conscious and Subconscious. You say the Brain adds Color to objects ... Yes but how do we experience the Color?


Baby steps...Steve...baby steps. You can now see evidence that "red" is held as a memory in the normal physical brain. This means your "Inter Mind" essay is rubbish and you have to agree that "red" is not new magical physics but a normal memory in the normal physical brain . :D

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:20 am

Dimebag wrote:Occam's razor should be invoked when there are two competing hypothesis, the simpler of which should be accepted. Both hypotheses need to be testable.
Not necessarily. If you see magician Criss Angel levitating, are you going to believe he's flying? Or that it's a trick? Occam's Razor will lead you to the conclusion that it's a trick, even if you don't test either hypothesis.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:47 am

LunaNik wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:1) Neurons fire
2) a Red Experience happens

LunaNik wrote:The sole issue with your lack of comprehension, and with you deeming there is an elusive “hard problem,” is your refusal to recognize that Step One of the above-quoted process is not the simplistic binary switch you seem to think it is. “Neurons fire” does not equate to a light switch being either on or off. And neurons are not homogenous in size, shape, or electrochemical properties. Neurons can be classified by their polarity (4 types), location and shape (11 types), direction of signal (3 types), action on other neurons (3 types), discharge patterns (3 types), and neurotransmitter production (5 types). Use some basic math and think about the number of permutations available, and you've begun to grasp the complexity of neuronal variety.


LunaNik wrote:So, when you say "neurons fire," are you referring to multipolar, efferent Purkinje neurons in the cerebellum that are GABAergic and send both excitatory and inhibitory signals depending upon their connections? Or are you talking about unipolar Brush neurons, excitatory glutamatergic interneurons in the cerebellar cortex? Perhaps you mean bipolar Spindle neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex? Maybe you didn't realize there were neurons in the retina itself. So, to which specific neurons are you referring? One specific type? More than one type? I'm guessing you don't have a {!#%@} clue, since you've consistently simplified the organic functioning of the brain, but needlessly complicated and mystified the conscious experience.


SteveKlinko wrote:I have been all through this before. The point is that I am saying, any type of Neuron Firing, any collection of Neurons Firing, any complicated feedback of Neurons Firing , and etc., cannot explain the Conscious experience of Red. I thought by this time you would know that. I say Neurons Firing in a general sense.

LunaNik wrote: I know what you've been saying, and I'm saying that your lack of understanding of the complexity of the brain has led you to frame an artificial argument. You continue to insist that "the conscious experience" is so infinitely complex that it can't possibly be generated by "neurons firing." It's clear from your repeated contention that you lack comprehension of the existing knowledge on neurons.

I have never said the Conscious Experience is too complex and even infinitely complex. I say that Conscious Experience is something completely different than anything in the known Physical World. Conscious experience itself is probably even pretty simple when you think about it.

LunaNik wrote:There is no such concept as "neurons firing in a general sense." Would the above mentioned Purkinje neurons contribute to the experience of red? No. They're the reason you can type "experience of red." And stop typing it, since they notify your muscles to contract and relax. How about the Brush neurons? Again, no. They're the reason you're not walking around with a permanent concussion from falling over. Maybe the Spindle neurons have something to do with it? Yep. Go look up "Spindle neurons" and see why humans, cetaceans, and some hominids are special. And you'll have a piece of your puzzle. Then keep studying neuroscience...and stop wasting our time with magical thinking.

Been there done that cant find Consciousness in any of that. The Hard Problem remains and the Explanatory Gap persists. By the way it's not up to me to go study Neuroscience to find the answer that you are unable to provide. If the answer was so easily found in the Neurons then how come you cant immediately and precisely say how Consciousness works.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:57 am

LunaNik wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The Physicalist really in fact doesn't experience the color Red in the same way a Dualist does. The Physicalist Conscious experience must be more at the Neural level. That explains why they can not get away from the Neurons and understand that Conscious experience is something very different and special. The Dualist experiences an extra level of Experience and Processing that the Dualist is not aware of.

Image
Image

Just trying to find an explanation for why Physicalists are unable to understand the Basic Problems of Conscious experience. It seems like Physicalists experience Consciousness differently than Dualists. Is this not possible? I could of course be wrong and Physicalists might not really be p-Zombies. We will have to wait and see.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:15 am

Poodle wrote:Steve - You're flying in the face of Occam's Razor. That's OK - but if you're going to do it successfully, you need to provide a reasonable explanation for your introduction of 'unnecessary' entities. You THINK (you have failed to establish this) that there is an as yet unexplained mechanism governing our recognition of 'red'. So stop trying to justify your argument and, instead, establish that there is good reason to accept this particular unnecessary entity. I can't see it from your posts thus far and, it seems, nor can anyone else here. You appear to be arguing from an emotional basis - you simply prefer your personal viewpoint. Understandable though that is, you are forgetting that it's not how things work. You must DEMONSTRATE that the perception of red is unique on an individual level. You have failed to do it so far.

Of course I have failed to do that. No one has been successful at explaining any Conscious experience in any Human or even animal. The whole point of The Inter Mind website is to spark the discussion and to get people to think outside the box. The basic premise of http://TheInterMind.com website is that we don't know. The Physicalists say there is no Hard Problem or Explanatory Gap and it's all in the Neurons. They say they know the answer. Ok show me how it works then. I'm not faulting you for not having the answer, I'm just saying don't make believe you have the answer before you really do have the answer.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:21 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: We have already pointed out that the brain's use of colour to represent different wave frequencies is both conscious and subconscious, as we know that the brain adds colour to objects being thought about or being examined, based on memory. We now know "red" comes from the normal physical brain. :D
SteveKlinko wrote:You say that Color is Conscious and Subconscious. You say the Brain adds Color to objects ... Yes but how do we experience the Color?


Baby steps...Steve...baby steps. You can now see evidence that "red" is held as a memory in the normal physical brain. This means your "Inter Mind" essay is rubbish and you have to agree that "red" is not new magical physics but a normal memory in the normal physical brain . :D

I have always said that the Color experience is linked to Brain Activity, So what's new here. The question remains. How do we experience the Color?

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:44 am

I continue to be puzzled as to how Physicalists can measure Brain activity and proclaim that they have discovered how Conscious experience works. All the Physicalist ever does is measure the Neural Correlates of Consciousness as talked about in the Quest For Consciousness by Christof Koch. If you let a test subject look at a Red Light there will of course be Neural Activity that is Correlated with that Red stimulus. The Physicalist says the knowledge that the Neural Activity has occurred solves the Problem of how we experience the Red. That is unsatisfactory at a Scientific, Philosophical, and even just a Common Sense level.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:07 pm

For the Red experience the question remains. Given that: 1) Neurons Fire and 2) a Red Experience happens what is the mechanism of Physics that gets us from 1) to 2)? That mechanism is the missing processing that the Inter Mind represents. I never said the Inter Mind explains Consciousness only that there must be some kind of Inter Mind functionality between 1) and 2). The Inter Mind might some day be found to be completely in the Physical Brain. Ok great, then show me where it is? If it is found to be in the Brain it should be called the Inter Mind aspect of the Brain. The Inter Mind is a placeholder for Brain processing that has yet to be discovered.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:24 pm

Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10061
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:34 pm

Steve

In this forum, I am not permitted to accuse anyone of being stupid. So what I will say is that there appears to be a cognitive gap in your understanding.

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, and over a trillion synapse connections. The total number of possible pathways that a nerve impulse might follow through the brain exceeds the total number of atoms in the universe. With all this complexity and all that potential, you still claim it cannot support human consciousness, or even account for the sensation of "red ".

Truly, there is one enormous cognitive gap !

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Steve

In this forum, I am not permitted to accuse anyone of being stupid. So what I will say is that there appears to be a cognitive gap in your understanding.

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, and over a trillion synapse connections. The total number of possible pathways that a nerve impulse might follow through the brain exceeds the total number of atoms in the universe. With all this complexity and all that potential, you still claim it cannot support human consciousness, or even account for the sensation of "red ".

Truly, there is one enormous cognitive gap !

Personally I feel the reductive materialist makes a larger assumption than those who believe large pieces of the puzzle are still missing. The reductive materialist holds that, from an entirely material construction, a phenomenon which is entirely different, which displays entirely different properties to anything described in modern physics, can arise with no apparent reason, no special mechanism which would set that new phenomenon as a different type than what physics describes matter to be, when it seems so clear the two are entirely different things. There seems to be some kind of miracle happening there which we are entirely uncomfortable with, and we feel begs for an explanation beyond "a miracle happens". Being skeptical people this surely must sit right with you, and yet you have allowed yourself to hold this one miracle, I find that quite unbecoming of a true skeptic.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:34 pm

Dimebag wrote:Personally I feel the reductive materialist makes a larger assumption than those who believe large pieces of the puzzle are still missing.
The only assumption that skeptics are making is that consciousness arises from the brain and its organic functioning. This is a logically-reasoned assumption, since cognition is one of the brain's functions. None of the puzzle pieces are missing; what's missing is the picture that shows how the pieces fit together, so we're having to figure out how to assemble the puzzle without it. That doesn't mean we should wander around the toy store and randomly decide to add a Slinky, a Rubik's Cube, a Barbie Dream House, and a Lego Death Star to the puzzle, as you and Steve seem to think.

Dimebag wrote:The reductive materialist holds that, from an entirely material construction, a phenomenon which is entirely different, which displays entirely different properties to anything described in modern physics, can arise with no apparent reason, no special mechanism which would set that new phenomenon as a different type than what physics describes matter to be, when it seems so clear the two are entirely different things.
There's a lot here which is based on your personal beliefs, but has no foundation in science.
1. Exactly how is consciousness "entirely different?" And from what it is "entirely different?"
2. Exactly how does consciousness "display entirely different properties from anything described in modern physics?"
3. Why do you believe that consciousness "arises for no apparent reason?"
4. Why have you only mentioned the matter from which neurons are made, but failed to discuss the electrochemical processes by which they communicate with each other? And why are you dismissing the brain as just a simple organ when, in fact, it is an exceedingly complex, interconnected organ with multiple multi-functional regions?
5. What exactly makes it clear to you that consciousness is "entirely different" from matter and energy working together?

Dimebag wrote:There seems to be some kind of miracle happening there which we are entirely uncomfortable with, and we feel begs for an explanation beyond "a miracle happens". Being skeptical people this surely must sit right with you, and yet you have allowed yourself to hold this one miracle, I find that quite unbecoming of a true skeptic.
"Miracle" is a catch-phrase for any event the user of the phrase doesn't understand. Why are you unable to see that the brain itself is a "miracle?" And what, exactly, do you think consciousness is? Neither you nor Steve has yet to offer any hypothesis at all, never mind a plausible one. All you've both done is reject science and claimed that consciousness is not an organic function of the brain. Then what is it? If it's not matter, and if it's not energy, what exactly is it? Be sure not to violate the laws of physics in your answer.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26586
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:32 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Baby steps...Steve...baby steps. You can now see evidence that "red" is held as a memory in the normal physical brain. This means your "Inter Mind" essay is rubbish and you have to agree that "red" is not new magical physics but a normal memory in the normal physical brain . :D

SteveKlinko wrote:I have always said that the Color experience is linked to Brain Activity, So what's new here. The question remains. How do we experience the Color?


Not "linked" Steve. It is a direct result of neuron activity. The "red" is held in normal physical memory. You can't get around that can you? Your "inter mind" theory is not required. :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26586
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:41 am

Dimebag wrote:a phenomenon which is entirely different, which displays entirely different properties to anything described in modern physics, can arise.......
"Totally different"?

Tell me Dimebag, When did this massively totally different consciousness arise? Was it it with Australopithecus, 2,500,000 years ago? No? what about Sahelanthropus tchadensis 7,000,000 years ago? No? Was it tetrapods about 400,000,000 years ago? Why can I only see normal physiological evolutionary changes in the brain box and no new DNA nucleotides?
:D

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:56 pm

LunaNik wrote:The only assumption that skeptics are making is that consciousness arises from the brain and its organic functioning. This is a logically-reasoned assumption, since cognition is one of the brain's functions. None of the puzzle pieces are missing; what's missing is the picture that shows how the pieces fit together, so we're having to figure out how to assemble the puzzle without it. That doesn't mean we should wander around the toy store and randomly decide to add a Slinky, a Rubik's Cube, a Barbie Dream House, and a Lego Death Star to the puzzle, as you and Steve seem to think.

There is a difference between saying consciousness arises from the brain, and consciousness is reducible to neurons firing. I agree that consciousness arises from the brain, however, I am not agreeing that it is reducible to neurons firing. I don't think we know enough about the fundamental nature of reality to be able to explain how consciousness arises from the brain, therefore I am proposing there is something which we don't currently understand about that fundamental reality. If we can agree that consciousness is a part of reality, which I think we both can agree, then we need to understand exactly how it fits with reality. It doesn't follow, or in other words, it isn't obvious why conscious experience SHOULD NECESSARILY follow from neural firing. Therefore, I propose there is something we don't quite understand about what is occurring when neural events combine to form a patchwork which becomes a conscious event. Basically, I am looking at it from an emergent perspective. The pieces which we currently have, don't explain why conscious experience should occur. You can take those existing pieces and try fit them together in different ways, you are trying to appeal to the idea of complexity, when previously you and others ridiculed the idea that due to the complex nature of the neural network and its functioning, consciousness arises. I don't personally see how something becoming complex can give rise to a property of the universe which seems entirely different form the pieces of which it is comprised. All emergent phenomenon are actually the sum of their parts, it necessarily follows from observing their interactions, that the emergent phenomenon arises. Take water from the way h2O molecules interact. Or life from organic molecules. You can see all the pieces doing their part to create the whole, which seems different, only because we usually can't see the individual parts working together. With conscious experience, we can't take a microscope and zoom in on consciousness to see individual pieces working together, we do not have that privilege. However, if we could, do you really think all there would be would be neurons firing? Logically it doesn't emerge.

LunaNik wrote:There's a lot here which is based on your personal beliefs, but has no foundation in science.
1. Exactly how is consciousness "entirely different?" And from what it is "entirely different?"
2. Exactly how does consciousness "display entirely different properties from anything described in modern physics?"

What is different? The subjectivity, the fact that there is an experience, that there is anything rather than neurons chattering in the background. Physics describes matter, but it seems to have no place for conscious experiences. It has a place for water, tornadoes, life, in fact all emergent phenomenon can be explain in a way that the properties which comprise them are supervenient to the sub properties from which they emerge. This can't be said for consciousness. It contains properties of subjectivity, quality, referral, unity, of which only referral can be explained, as we know the conscious experiences arise from neural correlates. But the properties of subjectivity, quality, and unity, are wholly unaccounted for, and it is difficult to see how neuroscience could explain these from neural functioning. What I fear is that, science as a discipline, describes nature by describing what it does, rather than describing what it is. So to describe consciousness as far as what it does, is to describe all the functions which combine to create consciousness. But in doing this, you do not get any inside information about WHY this must happen, you only describe that, when A + B + C interact, D happens, D being subjective conscious experience. It could be that, our way of understanding nature might not allow us access to a whole and satisfying explanation of consciousness, along the same vein of quantum mechanics and the way in which we can only guess as to the underlying causes behind the phenomenon which are observed.
LinaNik wrote:3. Why do you believe that consciousness "arises for no apparent reason?"
what I mean by no apparent reason, is that given our current understanding of the brain, it doesn't follow why consciousness SHOULD arise.
LunaNik wrote:4. Why have you only mentioned the matter from which neurons are made, but failed to discuss the electrochemical processes by which they communicate with each other? And why are you dismissing the brain as just a simple organ when, in fact, it is an exceedingly complex, interconnected organ with multiple multi-functional regions?

I am not discounting the electrochemical processes at the heart of neurons. Obviously a neuron is a very specific structure, with specific way of functioning, and varied ways depending on its set conditions. We begin to understand more and more about their functioning and it seems, we find details we never even knew existed. I do believe uncovering consciousness scientifically is a process of looking both deeper and deeper, and looking wider and wider. Deeper at the functioning of the neural substrate, and wider at the overall functioning over time. What we discover after we can truly say we know everything that is going on at the smallest level of neural functioning, and how this might tie together into a lattice to form a conscious event over time, is anyone's guess. What we do know from science in general is, just when we think we know it all, when we think we have all the pieces, we keep pulling a loose thread, only to unravel a whole new field of science. I am proposing that we keep looking. If we find no loose threads, we will have to be content with never truly knowing what conscious experience is in itself, but rather by what physical processes does a conscious event occur.

What you are saying is that, one day, we will take all these pieces, and one day assemble them in the correct way, stand back, and see what we have assembled is conscious experience. If that does happen, I will accept it. However what I am saying is, from the look of the puzzle when we stand back and view it, I can not see many of the pieces present in our box. Nor can I see how they could be assembled from the pieces we currently have.
LunaNik wrote:5. What exactly makes it clear to you that consciousness is "entirely different" from matter and energy working together?

Well matter and energy work together all the time without consciousness occurring, I don't believe it's that simple. It has to do with certain functions of matter. It is clear that matter and energy are required. What I am not certain is that we truly understand all there is to understand about matter and energy. Why should matter and energy working together lead to conscious experience? Just think about this for a minute. Consciousness is literally the universe reflecting on itself. Why should the universe contain this property called consciousness? I am not suggesting we hold consciousness as fundamental, firstly, because that doesn't explain anything about consciousness. It makes sense to me that consciousness can be reduced to an interaction of some kind. What exactly is interacting, is what is not clear.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
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 Jun 26, 2017 1:21 pm

Dimebag wrote:... I don't think we know enough about the fundamental nature of reality to be able to explain how consciousness arises from the brain, therefore I am proposing there is something which we don't currently understand about that fundamental reality ...

And that's where you should have stopped. Anything more looks awfully like a 'you stop arguing while I put in my own ideas' kind of statement - look at it this way or I'll tell my Mum. I'm surprised at you, Dimebag - you're usually much better than that.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:53 pm

Dimebag wrote:There is a difference between saying consciousness arises from the brain, and consciousness is reducible to neurons firing.
What is the difference? Again, you're presenting the concept of "neurons firing" as simplistic...and it's anything but. "Neurons firing" is how the brain operates. If consciousness arises from the brain, an idea with which you agree, then it must arise from the complex and interconnected process of neurons firing.
Dimebag wrote:I agree that consciousness arises from the brain, however, I am not agreeing that it is reducible to neurons firing.
Then I'd like you to explain the mystical process by which the brain produces consciousness, a process which is, by your argument, entirely separate from neuronal processes and remains undiscovered by neuroscience.
Dimebag wrote:I don't think we know enough about the fundamental nature of reality to be able to explain how consciousness arises from the brain, therefore I am proposing there is something which we don't currently understand about that fundamental reality.
Are you proposing there exists an undiscovered structure or network of structures in the brain? Are you proposing some sort of energy field? Or are you proposing that there is some substance that is neither matter nor energy that is responsible? That the laws of physics as we know them are wrong?
Dimebag wrote:If we can agree that consciousness is a part of reality, which I think we both can agree, then we need to understand exactly how it fits with reality. It doesn't follow, or in other words, it isn't obvious why conscious experience SHOULD NECESSARILY follow from neural firing.
Evolution is the obvious why.
Dimebag wrote:Therefore, I propose there is something we don't quite understand about what is occurring when neural events combine to form a patchwork which becomes a conscious event. Basically, I am looking at it from an emergent perspective. The pieces which we currently have, don't explain why conscious experience should occur.
Ok, I'm accepting that you have another viewpoint, but you have yet to put forth a coherent hypothesis that complies with the laws of physics.
Dimebag wrote:You can take those existing pieces and try fit them together in different ways, you are trying to appeal to the idea of complexity, when previously you and others ridiculed the idea that due to the complex nature of the neural network and its functioning, consciousness arises.
What?! I most certainly have not ridiculed that idea! That's exactly the point I've been making the entire time! We skeptics have been arguing exactly that for this entire thread!
Dimebag wrote:I don't personally see how something becoming complex can give rise to a property of the universe which seems entirely different form the pieces of which it is comprised. All emergent phenomenon are actually the sum of their parts, it necessarily follows from observing their interactions, that the emergent phenomenon arises.
Actually, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, as I've said before in this thread with my pizza analogy.
Dimebag wrote:
LunaNik wrote:There's a lot here which is based on your personal beliefs, but has no foundation in science.
1. Exactly how is consciousness "entirely different?" And from what it is "entirely different?"
2. Exactly how does consciousness "display entirely different properties from anything described in modern physics?"

What is different? The subjectivity, the fact that there is an experience, that there is anything rather than neurons chattering in the background.
The problem with subjectivity is that it's...subjective. It's human nature to impose order onto chaos, because we can't comprehend chaos. Constellations are a perfect example of this imposed order. The Big Dipper is instantly recognizable in the sky, yet the stars that form its pattern are utterly unrelated, astronomically-speaking. They range from 58 to 124 light years away from Earth, have different magnitudes and spectral types, etc. But from our earthly perspective, they form a subjective pattern.

You see chaos in the idea that your complex and entirely subjective conscious experience could arise from what you perceive to be an objective organic process. So you're looking for a subjective process to explain it. Something, as you have repeatedly said, "special." I'm not sure why you refuse to ascribe the word "special" to your own stored memories and neuronal processes.
Dimebag wrote:Physics describes matter, but it seems to have no place for conscious experiences. It has a place for water, tornadoes, life, in fact all emergent phenomenon can be explain in a way that the properties which comprise them are supervenient to the sub properties from which they emerge. This can't be said for consciousness. It contains properties of subjectivity, quality, referral, unity, of which only referral can be explained, as we know the conscious experiences arise from neural correlates. But the properties of subjectivity, quality, and unity, are wholly unaccounted for, and it is difficult to see how neuroscience could explain these from neural functioning.
How are these properties unaccounted for when you consider memory? Example: Let's say you and I go to dinner at the same restaurant. We both order the same entrée paired with the same wine. We're seated at the same table, so we have the same view. Basically, we're having as identical an experience as it's possible for two people to have. Yet our experiences will be completely different, won't they? Because your experience will be filtered through the lens of your memories, as will mine...and our memories are not the same. The wine might remind you of a wonderful memory of touring a vineyard, while it might remind me of a bitter argument with an ex. The entrée might remind you of that time you got food poisoning, while it might remind me of a relaxing evening spent with friends.
Dimebag wrote:
LunaNik wrote:3. Why do you believe that consciousness "arises for no apparent reason?"
what I mean by no apparent reason, is that given our current understanding of the brain, it doesn't follow why consciousness SHOULD arise.
Again, Matt covered that repeatedly in his discussions about evolution. Have you read about Spindle neurons?
Dimebag wrote:
LunaNik wrote:4. Why have you only mentioned the matter from which neurons are made, but failed to discuss the electrochemical processes by which they communicate with each other? And why are you dismissing the brain as just a simple organ when, in fact, it is an exceedingly complex, interconnected organ with multiple multi-functional regions?
I am not discounting the electrochemical processes at the heart of neurons. Obviously a neuron is a very specific structure, with specific way of functioning, and varied ways depending on its set conditions. We begin to understand more and more about their functioning and it seems, we find details we never even knew existed. I do believe uncovering consciousness scientifically is a process of looking both deeper and deeper, and looking wider and wider.

What you are saying is that, one day, we will take all these pieces, and one day assemble them in the correct way, stand back, and see what we have assembled is conscious experience. If that does happen, I will accept it. However what I am saying is, from the look of the puzzle when we stand back and view it, I can not see many of the pieces present in our box. Nor can I see how they could be assembled from the pieces we currently have.
Are you so unwilling to accept unanswered questions that you'd rather manufacture a wrong answer than simply wait for the correct answer?
Dimebag wrote:
LunaNik wrote:5. What exactly makes it clear to you that consciousness is "entirely different" from matter and energy working together?

Well matter and energy work together all the time without consciousness occurring, I don't believe it's that simple.
That's a copout answer. A microwave oven isn't a human brain.
Dimebag wrote:Just think about this for a minute. Consciousness is literally the universe reflecting on itself.
LOL...how do you figure that? You're not the universe and neither am I.
Dimebag wrote:Why should the universe contain this property called consciousness?
Why should the universe contain anything at all? Would it make any difference if the universe contained no life? Only to the life.
Dimebag wrote:I am not suggesting we hold consciousness as fundamental, firstly, because that doesn't explain anything about consciousness. It makes sense to me that consciousness can be reduced to an interaction of some kind. What exactly is interacting, is what is not clear.
I still think you're allowing emotional considerations to disrupt your critical thinking.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:14 pm

Poodle wrote:
Dimebag wrote:... I don't think we know enough about the fundamental nature of reality to be able to explain how consciousness arises from the brain, therefore I am proposing there is something which we don't currently understand about that fundamental reality ...

And that's where you should have stopped. Anything more looks awfully like a 'you stop arguing while I put in my own ideas' kind of statement - look at it this way or I'll tell my Mum. I'm surprised at you, Dimebag - you're usually much better than that.

If it seems like I am appealing to an authority I apologise, I simply use the same tactics which true skeptic use to silence the arguments they deem worthy of silencing. I am trying to show that the same virtues being used to criticise others about critical thinking are being broken on occasion by someone who truly believes in reductive materialism. I came here not for my passion of critical thinking, though I do believe it to be vitally important to development of science, but for my passion for the brain and its resultant processes.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:36 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Steve

In this forum, I am not permitted to accuse anyone of being stupid. So what I will say is that there appears to be a cognitive gap in your understanding.

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, and over a trillion synapse connections. The total number of possible pathways that a nerve impulse might follow through the brain exceeds the total number of atoms in the universe. With all this complexity and all that potential, you still claim it cannot support human consciousness, or even account for the sensation of "red ".

Truly, there is one enormous cognitive gap !

What does the pathway count have to do with the experience of Red? If there were 100 billion times 100 billion Neurons, and the pathway count that would imply, the Hard Problem of Consciousness would still be there. Neural Activity is a completely different "Kind" of thing than Conscious experience.

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

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:38 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Steve

In this forum, I am not permitted to accuse anyone of being stupid. So what I will say is that there appears to be a cognitive gap in your understanding.

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, and over a trillion synapse connections. The total number of possible pathways that a nerve impulse might follow through the brain exceeds the total number of atoms in the universe. With all this complexity and all that potential, you still claim it cannot support human consciousness, or even account for the sensation of "red ".

Truly, there is one enormous cognitive gap !

Personally I feel the reductive materialist makes a larger assumption than those who believe large pieces of the puzzle are still missing. The reductive materialist holds that, from an entirely material construction, a phenomenon which is entirely different, which displays entirely different properties to anything described in modern physics, can arise with no apparent reason, no special mechanism which would set that new phenomenon as a different type than what physics describes matter to be, when it seems so clear the two are entirely different things. There seems to be some kind of miracle happening there which we are entirely uncomfortable with, and we feel begs for an explanation beyond "a miracle happens". Being skeptical people this surely must sit right with you, and yet you have allowed yourself to hold this one miracle, I find that quite unbecoming of a true skeptic.

Very Good. I read your reply after I replied to this. We are saying the same thing here.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest