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

[SteveKlinko]

"To find Redness in the Neurons" is certainly not to find red neurons, but to find the nonred neural elements of redness that collectively constitute it (as we experience it).

So then some Magical Collective of Neurons constitutes Redness. How?

By virtue of some specific form of their connectivity. (I know this is still an imprecise general answer.)

"Brain connectivity refers to a pattern of anatomical links ("anatomical connectivity"), of statistical dependencies ("functional connectivity") or of causal interactions ("effective connectivity") between distinct units within a nervous system. The units correspond to individual neurons, neuronal populations, or anatomically segregated brain regions. The connectivity pattern is formed by structural links such as synapses or fiber pathways, or it represents statistical or causal relationships measured as cross-correlations, coherence, or information flow. Neural activity, and by extension neural codes, are constrained by connectivity. Brain connectivity is thus crucial to elucidating how neurons and neural networks process information."

Source: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Brain_connectivity

I cannot for the life of me figure out how this Connectivity Speculation ever got started. I ask for an Explanation of Redness and they say, its all about how the Neurons are Connected together. To say that Redness is about Connections of Neurons is strikingly Incoherent. What is the possible Chain Of Logic that goes from Neural Activity to the Experience of Redness? This Neural Connectivity Speculation is one of the biggest Red Herrings in the study of Consciousness.

[SteveKlinko]

Don't quite get: Something can't exist "in" itself.

Conscious experience doesn't exist "in" the world, it is the world. How do you find the world using parts of the world (science)?

What do you mean Conscious Experience IS the World? It is just a Speculation with a little Semantic Acrobatics thrown in.

It's a fact, anything else is speculation. You call this fact a speculation and treat your own ridiculous speculation as almost a fact.

Ok, we are at an Impasse on this.

[SteveKlinko]

From the Connectist point of view, Consciousness is Connected to the Brain, so it is completely expected that changes in the Brain will affect the Connection. The Conscious Mind does the best it can to stay Connected and use the Brain. The old "Changes to the Brain" argument must be reformulated when using the Connection Perspective.

Yes, for them, the brain would be seen as the most sensitive receiver of general consciousness and shaped by that brain into individual consciousness.

It does seem to me that all consciousness is largely the same. For example, when I look into the dog's eyes I see the same consciousness as mine, albeit shaped by the limits and strengths of a dog's morphology. Then again, we are subject to the same physical forces that drive the consciousness of other animals, just as type 1A supernovas have about the same luminosity.

The idea of consciousness as a (fifth?) force is intriguing, if an option taken less seriously than most. The fact that physics cannot explain everything points to limitations in current physical theories and suggests that reality may not be entirely physical, as we understand physicality.

I agree that Reality may not be entirely Physical, but I don't see Consciousness as being a fifth Force. First, I doubt there is any such thing as general Consciousness. There are only Conscious Experiences. There would have to be many new Forces in that case. One force for each type of Sensory Experience. Redness is certainly very different from Sound and Taste. How could all three of these be only one Force? Consciousness doesn't seem like a Force, rather it seems like something completely different from anything Science deals with at this time.

As per the chat between Belinda and me, it may be a matter of perspective. I personally think all consciousnesses are fundamentally the same. The difference is filtering. When the filters are broken, ie, brain damage, then subjective reality becomes chaotic. One can lose the ability to discern where one thing starts and another thing ends, or to fail to understand the abstractions that we take for granted, eg. being able to see a story in wiggly black marks on a light background. Take away the filters and you have unadulterated reality - blinding, deafening and overpowering - which is a common sensation of those awakening from coma.

I think it is possible that all Consciousnesses (Conscious Minds) are the same. But the truth of that will be for future research into the Conscious Mind.

[Atla]

Conscious experience doesn't exist "in" the world, it is the world. How do you find the world using parts of the world (science)?

What do you mean Conscious Experience IS the World? It is just a Speculation with a little Semantic Acrobatics thrown in.

It's a fact, anything else is speculation. You call this fact a speculation and treat your own ridiculous speculation as almost a fact.

Ok, we are at an Impasse on this.

Of course we are. When it comes to the Hard problem, I'm right and you guys are wrong, and that's a fact, don't care if people find me annoying. I got out of the learned double-vision, at least 99.9% of Westerners never will, they will keep hallucinating, making up stuff, and then call it a Hard problem.

[GrayArea]

What do you mean Conscious Experience IS the World? It is just a Speculation with a little Semantic Acrobatics thrown in.

It's a fact, anything else is speculation. You call this fact a speculation and treat your own ridiculous speculation as almost a fact.

Ok, we are at an Impasse on this.

Of course we are. When it comes to the Hard problem, I'm right and you guys are wrong, and that's a fact, don't care if people find me annoying. I got out of the learned double-vision, at least 99.9% of Westerners never will, they will keep hallucinating, making up stuff, and then call it a Hard problem.

Conscious Experience is merely what makes us be—it should never be used as a tool to analyze the world. Quit bringing it up. You are trying to forcefully bring up what allows us to bring things up in the first place, and try to use it as one of its subsets.

Also, I wonder how you are going to explain the phenomena of something outside of our senses being able to affect or even destroy our Conscious Experience? What if some object falls on us from above and kills us when we're not even aware of it?

Trying to explain how consciousness springs is akin to trying to figure out where that object is. It is a valid thing to do simply because we as conscious beings can physically do so.

[GrayArea]

"To find Redness in the Neurons" is certainly not to find red neurons, but to find the nonred neural elements of redness that collectively constitute it (as we experience it).

So then some Magical Collective of Neurons constitutes Redness. How?

By virtue of some specific form of their connectivity. (I know this is still an imprecise general answer.)

"Brain connectivity refers to a pattern of anatomical links ("anatomical connectivity"), of statistical dependencies ("functional connectivity") or of causal interactions ("effective connectivity") between distinct units within a nervous system. The units correspond to individual neurons, neuronal populations, or anatomically segregated brain regions. The connectivity pattern is formed by structural links such as synapses or fiber pathways, or it represents statistical or causal relationships measured as cross-correlations, coherence, or information flow. Neural activity, and by extension neural codes, are constrained by connectivity. Brain connectivity is thus crucial to elucidating how neurons and neural networks process information."

Source: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Brain_connectivity

I cannot for the life of me figure out how this Connectivity Speculation ever got started. I ask for an Explanation of Redness and they say, its all about how the Neurons are Connected together. To say that Redness is about Connections of Neurons is strikingly Incoherent. What is the possible Chain Of Logic that goes from Neural Activity to the Experience of Redness? This Neural Connectivity Speculation is one of the biggest Red Herrings in the study of Consciousness.

This redness, or qualia, is how each aspect of the materials which obey laws of physics, look like to another. (For example, the red lightwave and the neural cells of the human body) They can see them differently because they inevitably do so. They inevitably do so because it is anything’s nature to be distinguished and the laws of physics and how they act on materials are no exceptions.

[SteveKlinko]

So then some Magical Collective of Neurons constitutes Redness. How?

By virtue of some specific form of their connectivity. (I know this is still an imprecise general answer.)

"Brain connectivity refers to a pattern of anatomical links ("anatomical connectivity"), of statistical dependencies ("functional connectivity") or of causal interactions ("effective connectivity") between distinct units within a nervous system. The units correspond to individual neurons, neuronal populations, or anatomically segregated brain regions. The connectivity pattern is formed by structural links such as synapses or fiber pathways, or it represents statistical or causal relationships measured as cross-correlations, coherence, or information flow. Neural activity, and by extension neural codes, are constrained by connectivity. Brain connectivity is thus crucial to elucidating how neurons and neural networks process information."

Source: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Brain_connectivity

I cannot for the life of me figure out how this Connectivity Speculation ever got started. I ask for an Explanation of Redness and they say, its all about how the Neurons are Connected together. To say that Redness is about Connections of Neurons is strikingly Incoherent. What is the possible Chain Of Logic that goes from Neural Activity to the Experience of Redness? This Neural Connectivity Speculation is one of the biggest Red Herrings in the study of Consciousness.

This redness, or qualia, is how each aspect of the materials which obey laws of physics, look like to another. (For example, the red lightwave and the neural cells of the human body) They can see them differently because they inevitably do so. They inevitably do so because it is anything’s nature to be distinguished and the laws of physics and how they act on materials are no exceptions.

I don't quite understand. Given that:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens in the Physical Mind (Brain).
2) A Conscious Experience of Redness happens in the Conscious Mind.

We know 1 and 2 are Correlated, but what is the causal relationship between them. Do you believe the Causality goes from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 1? How does 1 produce 2? How does 2 Logically follow from 1? How does 2 produce 1? How does 1 Logically follow from 2?

[Atla]

Also, I wonder how you are going to explain the phenomena of something outside of our senses being able to affect or even destroy our Conscious Experience? What if some object falls on us from above and kills us when we're not even aware of it?

Conscious experience as such is the same thing as the world. It's a truism that if one part of the world (say a car falling on you) affects another part of the world (say your individual brain/mind), then that other part got affected.

As for destroying conscious experience, that's impossible. That's just a Western delusion, and you won't be able to actually prove that such a thing has ever happened. All you can prove is the truism that if someone's brain stops working, then that person's brain stopped working. So if someone can't remember X, then that person can't remember X.

[GrayArea]

Also, I wonder how you are going to explain the phenomena of something outside of our senses being able to affect or even destroy our Conscious Experience? What if some object falls on us from above and kills us when we're not even aware of it?

Conscious experience as such is the same thing as the world. It's a truism that if one part of the world (say a car falling on you) affects another part of the world (say your individual brain/mind), then that other part got affected.

As for destroying conscious experience, that's impossible. That's just a Western delusion, and you won't be able to actually prove that such a thing has ever happened. All you can prove is the truism that if someone's brain stops working, then that person's brain stopped working. So if someone can't remember X, then that person can't remember X.

So, when I say one "destroying" conscious experience, I simply mean one not being aware of the fact that it logically does not make sense for the Conscious Experience to be used as a component of thought, when it simply is “thought” itself and more.

All I'm saying thus, is that one only truly gets to understand Conscious Experience not by possessing an idea regarding Conscious Experience (such as Conscious Experience being the world and etc) but by simply being! That Conscious Experience is simply whatever is given to us already, as opposed to whatever we make of things. To make of things is only a part of whatever is given to us already.

Conscious Experience can only be fully defined by us existing and therefore automatically embracing its "given" consequences, the same consequences that allow us to interact with what we perceive as the physical world. It is inevitable, I suppose.

I think that the concept of mind should not be taken into consideration because we can never fully define the mind. This "true" mind is what allows us to define things in the first place anyway. I suppose that means that the only way to define the "true" mind is to know that we already have, through simply existing.

We should only care about how the physical world works and affects us from the perspective of the mind(*Where we can freely explore the physical world and how that creates consciousness) and not be so attached to the mind itself—as in, where that perspective comes from. To wonder where that perspective comes from is only possible because of our mind anyway.

This connects to the idea above that I said in a different post.

[Atla]

Also, I wonder how you are going to explain the phenomena of something outside of our senses being able to affect or even destroy our Conscious Experience? What if some object falls on us from above and kills us when we're not even aware of it?

Conscious experience as such is the same thing as the world. It's a truism that if one part of the world (say a car falling on you) affects another part of the world (say your individual brain/mind), then that other part got affected.

As for destroying conscious experience, that's impossible. That's just a Western delusion, and you won't be able to actually prove that such a thing has ever happened. All you can prove is the truism that if someone's brain stops working, then that person's brain stopped working. So if someone can't remember X, then that person can't remember X.

So, when I say one "destroying" conscious experience, I simply mean one not being aware of the fact that it logically does not make sense for the Conscious Experience to be used as a component of thought, when it simply is “thought” itself and more.

All I'm saying thus, is that one only truly gets to understand Conscious Experience not by possessing an idea regarding Conscious Experience (such as Conscious Experience being the world and etc) but by simply being! That Conscious Experience is simply whatever is given to us already, as opposed to whatever we make of things. To make of things is only a part of whatever is given to us already.

Conscious Experience can only be fully defined by us existing and therefore automatically embracing its "given" consequences, the same consequences that allow us to interact with what we perceive as the physical world. It is inevitable, I suppose.

I think that the concept of mind should not be taken into consideration because we can never fully define the mind. This "true" mind is what allows us to define things in the first place anyway. I suppose that means that the only way to define the "true" mind is to know that we already have, through simply existing.

We should only care about how the physical world works and affects us from the perspective of the mind(*Where we can freely explore the physical world and how that creates consciousness) and not be so attached to the mind itself—as in, where that perspective comes from. To wonder where that perspective comes from is only possible because of our mind anyway.

This connects to the idea above that I said in a different post.

Not sure about your point. All I'm saying is that conscious experience is given, but it's also the same thing as the world. They are one and the same given, they are / it is simply existence.

Mind and thought belong to the individual human though, obviously we are limited to our own minds which are also parts of existence.

[GrayArea]

Also, I wonder how you are going to explain the phenomena of something outside of our senses being able to affect or even destroy our Conscious Experience? What if some object falls on us from above and kills us when we're not even aware of it?

Conscious experience as such is the same thing as the world. It's a truism that if one part of the world (say a car falling on you) affects another part of the world (say your individual brain/mind), then that other part got affected.

As for destroying conscious experience, that's impossible. That's just a Western delusion, and you won't be able to actually prove that such a thing has ever happened. All you can prove is the truism that if someone's brain stops working, then that person's brain stopped working. So if someone can't remember X, then that person can't remember X.

So, when I say one "destroying" conscious experience, I simply mean one not being aware of the fact that it logically does not make sense for the Conscious Experience to be used as a component of thought, when it simply is “thought” itself and more.

All I'm saying thus, is that one only truly gets to understand Conscious Experience not by possessing an idea regarding Conscious Experience (such as Conscious Experience being the world and etc) but by simply being! That Conscious Experience is simply whatever is given to us already, as opposed to whatever we make of things. To make of things is only a part of whatever is given to us already.

Conscious Experience can only be fully defined by us existing and therefore automatically embracing its "given" consequences, the same consequences that allow us to interact with what we perceive as the physical world. It is inevitable, I suppose.

I think that the concept of mind should not be taken into consideration because we can never fully define the mind. This "true" mind is what allows us to define things in the first place anyway. I suppose that means that the only way to define the "true" mind is to know that we already have, through simply existing.

We should only care about how the physical world works and affects us from the perspective of the mind(*Where we can freely explore the physical world and how that creates consciousness) and not be so attached to the mind itself—as in, where that perspective comes from. To wonder where that perspective comes from is only possible because of our mind anyway.

This connects to the idea above that I said in a different post.

Not sure about your point. All I'm saying is that conscious experience is given, but it's also the same thing as the world. They are one and the same given, they are / it is simply existence.

Mind and thought belong to the individual human though, obviously we are limited to our own minds which are also parts of existence.

What I'm saying is that words are mere illusions. When we say the word "apple", we don't suddenly create an apple out of nowhere inside the brains of people who see the word "apple". Reserve the words for describing physical existence and how that may create something that we call "Conscious Experience", and let the real Conscious Experience be defined not through us defining it, but instead through us. That's all I can say at the end of the day.

[GrayArea]

What I'm saying is that words are mere illusions. When we say the word "apple", we don't suddenly create an apple out of nowhere inside the brains of people who see the word "apple". Reserve the words for describing physical existence and how that may create something that we call "Conscious Experience", and let the real Conscious Experience be defined not through us defining it, but instead through us. That's all I can say at the end of the day.

And no, as far as I'm concerned, physical existence is not an illusion. They are simply more suited for description by words than Conscious Experience.

[Atla]

What I'm saying is that words are mere illusions. When we say the word "apple", we don't suddenly create an apple out of nowhere inside the brains of people who see the word "apple". Reserve the words for describing physical existence and how that may create something that we call "Conscious Experience", and let the real Conscious Experience be defined not through us defining it, but instead through us. That's all I can say at the end of the day.

And no, as far as I'm concerned, physical existence is not an illusion. They are simply more suited for description by words than Conscious Experience.

Physical existence doesn't create conscious experience, they are one and the same thing. Of course 100% of what we say is in metaphor (including this sentence), some people realize this some people don't.

[GrayArea]

What I'm saying is that words are mere illusions. When we say the word "apple", we don't suddenly create an apple out of nowhere inside the brains of people who see the word "apple". Reserve the words for describing physical existence and how that may create something that we call "Conscious Experience", and let the real Conscious Experience be defined not through us defining it, but instead through us. That's all I can say at the end of the day.

And no, as far as I'm concerned, physical existence is not an illusion. They are simply more suited for description by words than Conscious Experience.

Physical existence doesn't create conscious experience, they are one and the same thing. Of course 100% of what we say is in metaphor (including this sentence), some people realize this some people don't.

I can get behind the idea that physical existence creates conscious experience as a product of itself, thus satisfying the relationship Physical Existence = Conscious Experience

So wouldn't that mean, if Physical Existence / Physical Experience is "what we call" Conscious Experience, that we as Conscious Beings can somehow figure out our nature via the naturally occuring investigation of Physical Existence?

[Atla]

What I'm saying is that words are mere illusions. When we say the word "apple", we don't suddenly create an apple out of nowhere inside the brains of people who see the word "apple". Reserve the words for describing physical existence and how that may create something that we call "Conscious Experience", and let the real Conscious Experience be defined not through us defining it, but instead through us. That's all I can say at the end of the day.

And no, as far as I'm concerned, physical existence is not an illusion. They are simply more suited for description by words than Conscious Experience.

Physical existence doesn't create conscious experience, they are one and the same thing. Of course 100% of what we say is in metaphor (including this sentence), some people realize this some people don't.

I can get behind the idea that physical existence creates conscious experience as a product of itself, thus satisfying the relationship Physical Existence = Conscious Experience

So wouldn't that mean, if Physical Existence / Physical Experience is "what we call" Conscious Experience, that we as Conscious Beings can somehow figure out our nature via the naturally occuring investigation of Physical Existence?

There is no product. Physical world and conscious world are one and the same thing period.