Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[SteveKlinko]

Redness is a concept that has no particular shape or time aspect. When there is a Red Ball it does not mean that Redness is a Ball any more than a Fire Truck means Redness is a Fire Truck. Redness is a Dimensionless Conscious Experience Phenomenon.

Colour, as a subjective phenomenon, exists in time for the period during which it is perceived. This is the case for all experience. Generally speaking, No time = absolute zero = nothing happening.

As I tried to explain, Conscious Experience will Manifest itself within the limits of the Dimensions and Time Line of any particular Universe. The Conscious Experience itself does not Exist in any one Universe or Time, but rather it Exists in a Dimensionless and Timeless place.

[Belindi]

Redness is a concept that has no particular shape or time aspect. When there is a Red Ball it does not mean that Redness is a Ball any more than a Fire Truck means Redness is a Fire Truck. Redness is a Dimensionless Conscious Experience Phenomenon.

Colour, as a subjective phenomenon, exists in time for the period during which it is perceived. This is the case for all experience. Generally speaking, No time = absolute zero = nothing happening.

As I tried to explain, Conscious Experience will Manifest itself within the limits of the Dimensions and Time Line of any particular Universe. The Conscious Experience itself does not Exist in any one Universe or Time, but rather it Exists in a Dimensionless and Timeless place.

Do you think there is nothing, apart from conscious mind? Not even a formless plenum? Not even a plenum so filled with forms we'd suffocate unless we could select?

[SteveKlinko]

Redness is a concept that has no particular shape or time aspect. When there is a Red Ball it does not mean that Redness is a Ball any more than a Fire Truck means Redness is a Fire Truck. Redness is a Dimensionless Conscious Experience Phenomenon.

Colour, as a subjective phenomenon, exists in time for the period during which it is perceived. This is the case for all experience. Generally speaking, No time = absolute zero = nothing happening.

As I tried to explain, Conscious Experience will Manifest itself within the limits of the Dimensions and Time Line of any particular Universe. The Conscious Experience itself does not Exist in any one Universe or Time, but rather it Exists in a Dimensionless and Timeless place.

Do you think there is nothing, apart from conscious mind? Not even a formless plenum? Not even a plenum so filled with forms we'd suffocate unless we could select?

My view is that there are Physical Things that exist in Physical Space and Conscious Experience Things that exist in Conscious Space. I take this as a basic premise for all my studies. I think we all have an Idea about Physical Space, but Conscious Space is a little more difficult to understand. I simply say that Conscious Space is where our Conscious Experiences happen.

[Sy Borg]

The Conscious Experience itself does not Exist in any one Universe or Time, but rather it Exists in a Dimensionless and Timeless place.

Why would you say that?

[SteveKlinko]

The Conscious Experience itself does not Exist in any one Universe or Time, but rather it Exists in a Dimensionless and Timeless place.

Why would you say that?

It is my own discovery after thinking about Conscious Experience and especially Redness in the Visual Experience for many years. Might not be completely right, but for now it looks that way to me. Of course, nobody really knows what the Redness is. It has to be Speculation at this point. The important point that I always try to make is that Redness is so Vastly different from any kind of Matter, Energy, or Property of Space, that it cannot possibly be a result of any of these basic Physics phenomena. Science is Silent on what Redness or the Mind actually are. Some people will drone on and on about how Conscious Experience is Energy with no justifications. Redness is Categorically different from anything Science can talk about at this time. Redness seems to Exist in a separate Domain or as I like to say, it Exists in a Conscious Mind within a place called Conscious Space. If you don't try to give Redness and all Conscious Experience a place to happen in, they will still just sort of hang there in your Conscious Experience outside of the Neural Activity. If it seems like it's outside the Neural Activity why not just admit it and give it a place to happen in. The Visual Experience certainly does float slightly outside of you and close to, or even embedded in, the front of your face. The details like Dimensionlessness and Timelessness, are irrelevant, and I only suggest them to get people to think in new ways.

[Belindi]

The Conscious Experience itself does not Exist in any one Universe or Time, but rather it Exists in a Dimensionless and Timeless place.

Why would you say that?

It is my own discovery after thinking about Conscious Experience and especially Redness in the Visual Experience for many years. Might not be completely right, but for now it looks that way to me. Of course, nobody really knows what the Redness is. It has to be Speculation at this point. The important point that I always try to make is that Redness is so Vastly different from any kind of Matter, Energy, or Property of Space, that it cannot possibly be a result of any of these basic Physics phenomena. Science is Silent on what Redness or the Mind actually are. Some people will drone on and on about how Conscious Experience is Energy with no justifications. Redness is Categorically different from anything Science can talk about at this time. Redness seems to Exist in a separate Domain or as I like to say, it Exists in a Conscious Mind within a place called Conscious Space. If you don't try to give Redness and all Conscious Experience a place to happen in, they will still just sort of hang there in your Conscious Experience outside of the Neural Activity. If it seems like it's outside the Neural Activity why not just admit it and give it a place to happen in. The Visual Experience certainly does float slightly outside of you and close to, or even embedded in, the front of your face. The details like Dimensionlessness and Timelessness, are irrelevant, and I only suggest them to get people to think in new ways.

But redness is not a quality that can be experienced apart from a context of shape.

Sheer redness is not a quality, it's an intellectual device.

[SteveKlinko]

The Conscious Experience itself does not Exist in any one Universe or Time, but rather it Exists in a Dimensionless and Timeless place.

Why would you say that?

It is my own discovery after thinking about Conscious Experience and especially Redness in the Visual Experience for many years. Might not be completely right, but for now it looks that way to me. Of course, nobody really knows what the Redness is. It has to be Speculation at this point. The important point that I always try to make is that Redness is so Vastly different from any kind of Matter, Energy, or Property of Space, that it cannot possibly be a result of any of these basic Physics phenomena. Science is Silent on what Redness or the Mind actually are. Some people will drone on and on about how Conscious Experience is Energy with no justifications. Redness is Categorically different from anything Science can talk about at this time. Redness seems to Exist in a separate Domain or as I like to say, it Exists in a Conscious Mind within a place called Conscious Space. If you don't try to give Redness and all Conscious Experience a place to happen in, they will still just sort of hang there in your Conscious Experience outside of the Neural Activity. If it seems like it's outside the Neural Activity why not just admit it and give it a place to happen in. The Visual Experience certainly does float slightly outside of you and close to, or even embedded in, the front of your face. The details like Dimensionlessness and Timelessness, are irrelevant, and I only suggest them to get people to think in new ways.

But redness is not a quality that can be experienced apart from a context of shape.

Sheer redness is not a quality, it's an intellectual device.

It seems like it can only be Experienced that way because of the limitations of any Physical Dimensioned Universe. But if you consider the Redness itself, apart from any Dimensioned object, you will begin to understand the Existence of the Redness Experience as a Thing In Itself. Redness is more than an Intellectual Device (if I understand that correctly), it is a Real thing that Exists in the Manifest Universe.

[Belindi]

Why would you say that?

It is my own discovery after thinking about Conscious Experience and especially Redness in the Visual Experience for many years. Might not be completely right, but for now it looks that way to me. Of course, nobody really knows what the Redness is. It has to be Speculation at this point. The important point that I always try to make is that Redness is so Vastly different from any kind of Matter, Energy, or Property of Space, that it cannot possibly be a result of any of these basic Physics phenomena. Science is Silent on what Redness or the Mind actually are. Some people will drone on and on about how Conscious Experience is Energy with no justifications. Redness is Categorically different from anything Science can talk about at this time. Redness seems to Exist in a separate Domain or as I like to say, it Exists in a Conscious Mind within a place called Conscious Space. If you don't try to give Redness and all Conscious Experience a place to happen in, they will still just sort of hang there in your Conscious Experience outside of the Neural Activity. If it seems like it's outside the Neural Activity why not just admit it and give it a place to happen in. The Visual Experience certainly does float slightly outside of you and close to, or even embedded in, the front of your face. The details like Dimensionlessness and Timelessness, are irrelevant, and I only suggest them to get people to think in new ways.

But redness is not a quality that can be experienced apart from a context of shape.

Sheer redness is not a quality, it's an intellectual device.

It seems like it can only be Experienced that way because of the limitations of any Physical Dimensioned Universe. But if you consider the Redness itself, apart from any Dimensioned object, you will begin to understand the Existence of the Redness Experience as a Thing In Itself. Redness is more than an Intellectual Device (if I understand that correctly), it is a Real thing that Exists in the Manifest Universe.

I had not thought you were a Platonist.

[SteveKlinko]

It is my own discovery after thinking about Conscious Experience and especially Redness in the Visual Experience for many years. Might not be completely right, but for now it looks that way to me. Of course, nobody really knows what the Redness is. It has to be Speculation at this point. The important point that I always try to make is that Redness is so Vastly different from any kind of Matter, Energy, or Property of Space, that it cannot possibly be a result of any of these basic Physics phenomena. Science is Silent on what Redness or the Mind actually are. Some people will drone on and on about how Conscious Experience is Energy with no justifications. Redness is Categorically different from anything Science can talk about at this time. Redness seems to Exist in a separate Domain or as I like to say, it Exists in a Conscious Mind within a place called Conscious Space. If you don't try to give Redness and all Conscious Experience a place to happen in, they will still just sort of hang there in your Conscious Experience outside of the Neural Activity. If it seems like it's outside the Neural Activity why not just admit it and give it a place to happen in. The Visual Experience certainly does float slightly outside of you and close to, or even embedded in, the front of your face. The details like Dimensionlessness and Timelessness, are irrelevant, and I only suggest them to get people to think in new ways.

But redness is not a quality that can be experienced apart from a context of shape.

Sheer redness is not a quality, it's an intellectual device.

It seems like it can only be Experienced that way because of the limitations of any Physical Dimensioned Universe. But if you consider the Redness itself, apart from any Dimensioned object, you will begin to understand the Existence of the Redness Experience as a Thing In Itself. Redness is more than an Intellectual Device (if I understand that correctly), it is a Real thing that Exists in the Manifest Universe.

I had not thought you were a Platonist.

You must think Redness is just a concept with no real Existence. If you think more Deeply about Redness and all the other Conscious Experiences, you will gradually understand the Reality of them.

[Gertie]

Mr. Nicholas Humphry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Humphrey was asked whether consciousness is an illusion and he replied: "Yes", that he believed it was. Nicholas is a self proclaimed Materialist, and a cognitive scientist. As such, it begs the question: is his belief in the concept of 'illusion' self-refuting, ironic, and paradoxical? The philosophical reason why this belief may be paradoxical is because the definition of 'illusion' in itself, is a 'metaphysical phenomenon' (or is it)?

Frankish talks about weak and strong illusionism re consciousness. Strong illusionism claims phenomenal conscious experience does not exist. That looks paradoxical because the having of a belief that phenomenal experience doesn't exist is itself a phenomenal experience.

Weak illusionism claims that phenomenal experience exists, but isn't what we think it is based on our own introspection. But it seems to me it's impossible to be mistaken about the content of our own experience, because the experience and its content are the same thing. To have a particular conscious experience (eg seeing a red apple) is to have knowledge of the content of that experience. Hence experience is directly known, and there is no gap between the experiencing and having knowledge of the experience where error can occur.

So Illusionism is as daft as it sounds.

That doesn't mean our experiences give us perfect direct knowledge about the world 'out there'. We can have optical illusions for example, because conscious experience is a flawed and limited representaion we create of the actual world. Because we are flawed and limited critters, who evolved for utility, not perfectly perceiving and understanding the everything about the actual world. (Our conscious representations have to be good enough to generally enable us to survive and reproduce). So you might as well say seeing a table as solid is an optical illusion, as it's mostly empty space, but seeing it as solid works for us.

One ancillary question to the foregoing is, how does he use logical concepts to arrive at the conclusion of consciousness being illusionary, I wonder? Well, this is one possibility:

2. Philosophically, does the explanation of consciousness itself break the rules of formal logic (a priori) and other logical axioms such as Bivalence and LEM? I would submit yes it does. It does by virtue of the infamous 'driving while daydreaming' scenario where both the conscious and subconscious mind is perceived to be operating independently of each other. This suggests that consciousness cannot be explained/described logically in the formal sense.

Brains are the body's physical command and control centre - stimuli come in, the brain's subsystems interact, and motor functions are activated. Some parts of that manifest correlated conscious experience, some don't, and of those that do some get the spotlight of attention or focus, some don't. This makes evolutionary sense, because if every neural interaction was conscious and had equal focus, it would be a confusing cacophanous overload and practically useless. So again in evolutionary terms, the way this works makes sense, there's no logic problem there.

Alternatively, should one be also prepared to embrace other absurdities about the perceptions of reality (Subjective Idealism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism ) and conclude that consciousness itself (which is apparently 'logically impossible' by formal definition standards, yet exists) is all that we know exists?

It's all we know exists for certain, but if we assume the content of our conscious experience is a representation of an actual world out there, it works so well as to make no difference to us.

Other philosophical concerns resulting from the limitations of 'pure reason' might include the questions about the paradoxical apperceptions of reality. Is "I think therefore I am" proof of a reality that exists only in one's mind? How can logic and rationality save us from this nightmare?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

It can't.

But then if we are flawed limited critters who evolved to perceive and reason on the basis of utility rather than perfect knowledge, we shouldn't expect it to.

There are genuine paradoxical headscratchers when it comes to the mind-body relationship, which our notions of logic (rooted in and abstracted from our physicalist understanding of how the world works) struggle to make sense of. But I don't think you've nailed the nature problem down here.

[Consul]

…the having of a belief that phenomenal experience doesn't exist is itself a phenomenal experience.

I don't think so: viewtopic.php?p=400904#p400904

[chewybrian]

Weak illusionism claims that phenomenal experience exists, but isn't what we think it is based on our own introspection. But it seems to me it's impossible to be mistaken about the content of our own experience, because the experience and its content are the same thing. To have a particular conscious experience (eg seeing a red apple) is to have knowledge of the content of that experience. Hence experience is directly known, and there is no gap between the experiencing and having knowledge of the experience where error can occur.

So Illusionism is as daft as it sounds.

That doesn't mean our experiences give us perfect direct knowledge about the world 'out there'. We can have optical illusions for example...

I'm curious if you would put cognitive distortions and cognitive biases in this same category with optical illusions. Certainly our prejudices, preconceptions, wishes and fears can cause us to misinterpret the nature of our actual perceptions and experiences, such that we are fully convinced that we are having an experience that does not match the reality of what is happening. Ironically, perhaps the most common bias is the illusion of objectivity, or the idea that we can look out into the world and directly see the true nature of events.

I think I would, as they don't seem to negate, but only distort our experiences. I don't think this changes the evident truth of what you said; it's just another example of a different kind of illusion.

[Belindi]

But redness is not a quality that can be experienced apart from a context of shape.

Sheer redness is not a quality, it's an intellectual device.

It seems like it can only be Experienced that way because of the limitations of any Physical Dimensioned Universe. But if you consider the Redness itself, apart from any Dimensioned object, you will begin to understand the Existence of the Redness Experience as a Thing In Itself. Redness is more than an Intellectual Device (if I understand that correctly), it is a Real thing that Exists in the Manifest Universe.

I had not thought you were a Platonist.

You must think Redness is just a concept with no real Existence. If you think more Deeply about Redness and all the other Conscious Experiences, you will gradually understand the Reality of them.

This exchange with you has helped me to think some more about redness and other quantitative abstractions from real experiences, abstractions such as highness, wideness, beforeness, afterness, blueness, goodness, trueness, prettiness, soreness, yellowness, hardness, and so on and so forth.

Each of those abstractions are wrested from the totality of a real experience. All real experiences are experiences of an environment infinitely more than any bit or bob such as one word can express.

[SteveKlinko]

It seems like it can only be Experienced that way because of the limitations of any Physical Dimensioned Universe. But if you consider the Redness itself, apart from any Dimensioned object, you will begin to understand the Existence of the Redness Experience as a Thing In Itself. Redness is more than an Intellectual Device (if I understand that correctly), it is a Real thing that Exists in the Manifest Universe.

I had not thought you were a Platonist.

You must think Redness is just a concept with no real Existence. If you think more Deeply about Redness and all the other Conscious Experiences, you will gradually understand the Reality of them.

This exchange with you has helped me to think some more about redness and other quantitative abstractions from real experiences, abstractions such as highness, wideness, beforeness, afterness, blueness, goodness, trueness, prettiness, soreness, yellowness, hardness, and so on and so forth.

Each of those abstractions are wrested from the totality of a real experience. All real experiences are experiences of an environment infinitely more than any bit or bob such as one word can express.

I'm happy to help. But you are putting disparate Categories of things into the same Box. So, I have to differ with you that Redness is in the same category as all those things. Highness and Wideness are concepts that arise in any Physical Universe that has Dimensions. The words describe some Physical aspect of that Universe. Whereas, Redness has nothing to do with the Dimensionality of any Physical Universe. Redness is an Experience and not a mere Concept. Beforeness and Afterness are also not in the same Category as Redness. These could mean Before and After in a Timeline, or Before and After in Physical Space. Since Redness is Dimensionless and TImeless it has nothing to do with these things. Then when you lump in Goodness and Trueness into the Box, I feel you really do not yet understand the reality of Redness as a Thing In Itself. Redness is a Conscious Experience that actually Exists in a Conscious Mind and so has an actual Existence in the Manifest Universe. Take the Redness out of the Visual Scene you are looking at and Play with it a little. You might discover something interesting.

[Gertie]

…the having of a belief that phenomenal experience doesn't exist is itself a phenomenal experience.

I don't think so: viewtopic.php?p=400904#p400904

Your linked post -

Propositional attitudes are a standard example of nonconscious mental states. Well, in the literature we find a distinction between "standing", dispositional PAs, which are nonconscious states, and occurrent PAs, which are conscious events.

I think what this is literally referring to is that we have formed, via genes plus past experiences, neural patterns of connections (dispositions) which we call beliefs, which will be 'fired' into consciousness when triggered into activity (occurent). I don't see a fundamental difference between describing beliefs and desires that way, and seeing, hearing, remembering, thinking to ourselves, feeling pain or hunger, etc.


There are lots of 'flavours' of conscious experience, which we can categorise using different broad terms because they have a certain 'flavour' to them, but they are all 'dispositional' in the sense that existing neural patterns influence the nature of a specific conscious event. So this division between ''qualia'' and ''propositional attitudes'' doesn't seem hugely significant to me in principle the way it does to some people.

But I think PAs such as beliefs are never conscious events. There are no occurrent or experiential believings (belief-experiences), because there are only conscious belief-thoughts in the form of sentences of inner speech (“I believe that…”), which aren't beliefs themselves but only conscious expressions or indications of nonconscious beliefs. And this is equally true of all other kinds of PAs (knowledge, desire, hope…), none of which is ever part of the stream of my experience.

Based on my comment above, I'd say if you're prepared to call the patterns of neural connections 'nonconscious beliefs', which correlate with inner speech, then I don't know why the conscious inner speech itself doesn't count as a belief. Unless you also apply that to seeing a red apple, feeling pain or hunger, remembering yesterday, imagining tomorrow, the inner voice talking about other things than beliefs, etc.