We do not See things in the external World, but rather we Detect things by using internal Conscious processes that we are born with. We all have a personal Conscious Light Screen (CLS) that we use to detect what is happening in the external World. All the Conscious Light of your Visual Experience is painted onto that Screen. If we try to describe where this CLS is located it seems to be embedded in the front of our faces in some way. The CLS is vaguely horizontally rectangular with ambiguous edges that are hard to locate exactly. The screen seems to just fade into nonexistence at the borders. But wherever you look, that screen is there showing you with Conscious Light what is in the scene you are looking at.
To understand this better close your eyes and observe what you See. At first there may be various After Images that represent remnants of what you were looking at, but eventually these fade away. What is left is not totally black. Note that you might have to put your hand over your eyes if you are in a bright place in order to cut off external Light from leaking through your eyelids. Most people will notice a background that has a vague grainy noise almost like the video snow noise that used to appear on old analog TVs. Let’s call this Conscious Light Noise (CLN). It is due to random Retinal and Cortical firings. CLN really is the background noise in your Visual detection system. Most people easily perceive that this CLN, and possible After Images, are close to the front of their faces. If you move your head around you will See the CLN, and After Images, move around with your head to keep them in front of your face. If you move your eyes up, down, left, or right, the CLN and After Images will seem to be displaced a little in those directions but will still basically be located in front of your face. It is interesting to note that After Images will always look close even if the scene element that caused the After Image is far away. Now you know where your CLS is located.
When you open your eyes the scene that you are looking at is painted onto your CLS and it is harder to perceive that the Conscious Light making up the image is still close to your face. Your Visual system tries to give you the illusion that there are things that are far away and things that are close. If you look through only one eye the depth illusion is less pronounced. But the Conscious Light that the scene is painted with is actually still located close to your face and is at the same distance as the CLN. The illusion of distance is absolutely necessary for moving around in the World.
It should be mentioned that the things and scenes you See while Dreaming are painted onto your CLS. If you try to imagine some object, you will see a grainy, hazy, version of that object painted onto your CLS. If you rub your eyes, the Lights that you might See are painted onto your CLS.
The CLS is a general purpose Visual Display Device for all Conscious beings, whether Human or Animal. The Light that is painted onto your CLS is your Light. We walk around all day long looking at our CLSs which are embedded in the front of our faces. We cannot See the CLSs of other people but if we could it would be as if everyone was wearing Virtual Reality goggles. But instead of goggles it would be Conscious Light Screens. We think we are Seeing the external World directly but we (our Conscious Minds) are always just looking (in some Conscious way) at our own CLSs.
I guess you can’t see your own Conscious Light Screen. Too bad. It’s a cool thing to think about.
I’m not quite sure what you are proposing but if it is a “special” ability possessed by onle few “privileged” persons, it is probably woo.
We might begin by determining how “sight” by our visual senses (eyes) is transmitted to the dark, blind brain.
The Mechanics of Vision
Let us briefly consider how this task is accomplished.. The eye has often been compared to a camera, and in its essentials this analogy holds up well enough (see below). Both eye and camera have a lens, which suitably bends (or refracts) light rays passing through it and thus projects an image upon a light-sensitve surface
Eye and Camera: As an accessory apparatus for fashioning a sharp image out of the light that enters from outside, the eye has many similarities to the camera. Both have a lens for bending light rays to project an inverted image upon a light-sensitive surface at the back. In the eye a transparent outer layer, the cornea, participates in this light-bending. The light-sensitive surface in the eye is the retina, whose most sensitive region is the fovea. Both eye and camera have a focusing decide in the eye, the lens can be thickened or flattened. Both have an adjustable iris diaphragm. And both finally are encased in black to minimize the effects of stray light; in the eye this is done by a layer of darkly pigmented tissue, the choroid coat.
The image of an object that falls upon the retina is determined by simple optical geometry Its size will be inversely proportional to the distance of the object, while its shape will depend on its orientation. Thus, a rectangle viewed at a slant will project as a trapezoid.
The retina: There are three main retinal layers: the rods and cones, which are the photoreceptors; the bipolar cells; and the, ganglion cells, whose axons make up the optic nerve. There are also two other kinds of cells, horizontal cells and amacrine cells, that allow for sideways (lateral) interaction As shown in the diagram, the retina contains an anatomical oddity. As it is constructed, the photoreceptors are at the very back, the bipolar cells are in between, and the ganglion cells are at the top. As a result, light has to pass through the other layers (they are not opaque so this is possible) to reach the rods and cone, whose stimulation starts the visual process.
Then all this is translated into electro-chemical impulses which are transmitted into brain (which is completely dark and blind) andre-translated into a visual holographic image with the use of stored visual memories. At this point the brain makes a “best guess” of the incoming information and this process is explained by Anil Seth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo&t=8s
I would suggest to view this excellent lecture and compare it to your current perspective. Then let us know at what stage your proposition becomes relevant to the process.
Write4U: I’m not quite sure what you are proposing but if it is a “special” ability possessed by onle few “privileged” persons, it is probably woo.
We might begin by determining how “sight” by our visual senses (eyes) is transmitted to the dark, blind brain.
The Conscious Light Screen concept follows from some writings posted at the http://TheInterMind.com website. I say we all use our own personal Conscious Light Screens, not just a few privileged people. I’m just trying to get people to recognize their own CLSs. It’s a change in perspective that can be surprising and even exciting for people that haven’t thought much about Conscious Visual Perception. Thank you for the link about the Mechanics of Vision but I have studied the Visual System and Visual Brain areas for many years. Unfortunately, for something even as simple as the question of What is Redness, these Front End mechanics and later Neural Processing stages provide no answers. Science knows quite a bit about how Eye Optics work and how the Retina Works and how the Visual Cortex areas work but Science cannot tell you what that Redness is as thing in itself and how it is that our Conscious Minds can Experience Redness. The idea that Consciousness can be thought about as a Controlled Hallucination was I believe first suggested by Max Clowes back in the 70s or 80s. Saying that Consciousness is a Controlled Hallucination and pointing out various Illusions of perception do not get us any closer to understanding what Consciousness is.
I am so sick of that crap about the mystery of redness. It’s only perceived as a big mystery. But it’s not. I see water on the highway up ahead on a hot day. But there isn’t any water there. My brain processed in such a way that I saw water. The neurological correlates for seeing the illusion are as real as the neurological correlates that are seeing or thinking anything.
Consciousness can be understood as the various awareness behaviors that we are capable of at the moments that we have them. That’s it. No big mystery.
As far as colors, we see things that our brain processes as being a certain color. Let’s say red. Now I can imagine that red thing. Bam! the neurological correlates for imagining that red thing, fire off. Now I can imagine just the color red. Bam! The neurological correlates for imagining red, fires off.
Red is just one of the colors we can see and imagine. IT’S NOT A MYSTERY.
TimB: I am so sick of that crap about the mystery of redness. It’s only perceived as a big mystery. But it’s not. I see water on the highway up ahead on a hot day. But there isn’t any water there. My brain processed in such a way that I saw water. The neurological correlates for seeing the illusion are as real as the neurological correlates that are seeing or thinking anything.
You are completely missing the point by talking about Illusions. The water was not really on the road but the Light that was coming into you eyes did contain an area that looked like there was water. This is because of the particular coincidence of the angles of Light at the time. This would also show up on a picture of the scene. The appearance of water was really there even though water was not actually there. The issue you are missing is how did your Brain generate the scene you were looking at?
TimB: Consciousness can be understood as the various awareness behaviors that we are capable of at the moments that we have them. That’s it. No big mystery.
That’s the biggest non Explanation of Consciousness that I have ever heard. You Obviously do not understand the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
TimB: As far as colors, we see things that our brain processes as being a certain color. Let’s say red. Now I can imagine that red thing. Bam! the neurological correlates for imagining that red thing, fire off. Now I can imagine just the color red. Bam! The neurological correlates for imagining red, fires off.
Red is just one of the colors we can see and imagine. IT’S NOT A MYSTERY.
So we just Imagine and See Colors, and that’s that! No further Explanation is needed, according to your Philosophy. This is astounding intellectual blindness to me. If you have the answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness you have not Explained it. We are at a standoff because I completely do not understand any of the arguments that you think solve the Consciousness Problem so easily.
The idea that Consciousness can be thought about as a Controlled Hallucination
but
You are completely missing the point by talking about Illusions.
What's the distinction between Hallucination and Illusions that you are pointing to?
We are at a standoff
That's for sure. So why do you keep beating this dead horse? The people who do this for a living agree with you. Someone names this thing called The Hard Problem, and others say, that's not a thing. Why would you expect that you could come here and convince us one of those guys is right?
As far as I can tell, the CLS your personal thing Steve. When I google it, I get two pages of results with your name all over it. This is not a forum for selling your personal theories. It is especially not a forum for berating people who are not interested in your personal theories. Maybe it’s a function of google, but the results I got, kinda humorous.
The appearance of water was really there even though water was not actually there. The issue you are missing is how did your Brain generate the scene you were looking at?
By “best guessing” from prior stored experiential information. If you have watched the Anil Seth clip I provided, you will know that the brain itself is blind and deaf and can only make a “best guess” of the nature of the incoming information. Optical illusions demonstrate how easy it is to “fool” the brain into “seeing” something that is NOT there.
A and Bare the exact same shade of gray!
The reverse is true also as Seth demonstrated adaptive ability of the brain to incorporate clues about audible information it receives.
TimB: That’s for sure. So why do you keep beating this dead horse? The people who do this for a living agree with you. Someone names this thing called The Hard Problem, and others say, that’s not a thing. Why would you expect that you could come here and convince us one of those guys is right?
If it was a Dead Horse I would stop the beating. The Hard Problem is alive and well!
Lausten: As far as I can tell, the CLS your personal thing Steve. When I google it, I get two pages of results with your name all over it. This is not a forum for selling your personal theories. It is especially not a forum for berating people who are not interested in your personal theories. Maybe it’s a function of google, but the results I got, kinda humorous.
I thought a Philosophy Forum would be about all ideas, personal or otherwise. I try not to berate first but I have no problem with berating back.
Write4U: By “best guessing” from prior stored experiential information. If you have watched the Anil Seth clip I provided, you will know that the brain itself is blind and deaf and can only make a “best guess” of the nature of the incoming information. Optical illusions demonstrate how easy it is to “fool” the brain into “seeing” something that is NOT there.
Of course the Brain does predictions. I have one that I like to talk about. Sometimes there is no towel in the Bathroom. It’s usually in the Laundry or something and I forgot to put new one out. When I turn around after washing my hands and go to get the towel, I could swear that for just an instant, I see a towel there and then it instantly disappears. My wife says she has had that same experience. But the question now is what is happening in that instant where I saw the towel? How did I see that semi Hallucination of a towel? Then when there really is a towel there it is the same problem. How do you See it? There has to be some explainable mechanism for how we See. That is the Hard problem regardless of if we are Experiencing a Hallucination, a Dream, or an actual Perception of the world.
I admit that “I’m sick of that crap” and “malarkey” are not exactly intellectually engaging comments. However, there seems to be a preference here for tolerating some of that language. Policy allows for moderation of it, but as long as it stays PG and individuals are not expressing personal harm, I let it go. If the exchange of insults between the two of you continued for several days or bled over into other threads, that might be a problem.
You cross a line with statements like, “This is astounding intellectual blindness to me.” There is no intellectual evidence for that since this is a known philosophical argument with intellectual arguments proposed and no current consensus. It’s equivalent to claiming that you solved P verse NP and then telling people they are stupid because they don’t understand your solution.
It’s not lost on me that someone is claiming they solved the problem of Dark Matter in another thread, but again, as long as they stick to their one thread, that they started, and keep the language at broadcast TV standards, I’ll let that go for now. They’ve been for a couple weeks, you have dragged this conversation out and started it up again. You couldn’t win over people on a forum dedicated to Philosophy, but you came here. This isn’t some schoolyard where you get to say who started it. You have a clear pattern of disruptive behavior.
I went through a rather traumatic experience of having my house under 3 feet of water. Before that, I had a box my father made, with some special tools in it, that I had restored. After the flood, it had broken apart again and someone had put it in the burn pile. I literally grabbed it as the flames were lapping at its edges. I took a bunch of stuff like that, put it in boxes and put in a shed. A year later, my memory was that I had restored it AFTER the flood. Problem was now I couldn’t find it. That shed was a mess and did not have much light, but one day I was going through stuff, and there was a cardboard box of pieces of that box, disassembled, but recognizable, but I couldn’t accept it was what it was, I was looking for a fully assembled box. It took about 10 seconds, and I could I watch the images in my brain adjust to the reality of what had happened, instead of my wrong memory, as if I was pulling out misfiled information and reassembling it.
But I don’t know how you think saying “Intellectual Blindness” is as disruptive as “Sick of that Crap”. Seems like a completely unfair comparison and it is perfectly reasonable to ask who started it.
But I don’t know how you think saying “Intellectual Blindness” is as disruptive as “Sick of that Crap”.
Not sure what to say without repeating myself. TimB expressed his personal feelings. If I were conducting a listening skills seminar or acting as your marital counselor, I'd suggest that he use a better "I" statement, one that didn't include a judgment on your topic. At least though, he was addressing your topic, not your intellectual abilities. You expressed nothing but judgment, saying there is something wrong with his intellect, or that he his deliberately blinding himself from your understanding, as if it is obviously superior. I would allow something like that if someone repeatedly put up Michael Behe links and never acknowledged something from the Berkeley Evolution 101, but in this case, you are much closer to the person ignoring links and references to other philosophers than he is.
You took my Intellectual Blindness statement out of context. Here it is in context:
So we just Imagine and See Colors, and that’s that! No further Explanation is needed, according to your Philosophy. This is astounding intellectual blindness to me. If you have the answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness you have not Explained it. We are at a standoff because I completely do not understand any of the arguments that you think solve the Consciousness Problem so easily.
I said I do not understand his arguments and said we are at a standoff implying that I was done with that argument. I was obviously not going to persist with this like you imply that I do.
To recap: His explanation for Conscious Vision was that he Sees and that is that. No further Explanation needed. I take it back it’s not Intellectual Blindness it’s Intellectual Laziness. This is a ridiculous cry baby exercise. If you are a moderator and are going to hound me like this then I’m out, or go ahead and ban me. Bye.
Eye and Camera: As an accessory apparatus for fashioning a sharp image out of the light that enters from outside, the eye has many similarities to the camera. Both have a lens for bending light rays to project an inverted image upon a light-sensitive surface at the back. In the eye a transparent outer layer, the cornea, participates in this light-bending. The light-sensitive surface in the eye is the retina, whose most sensitive region is the fovea. Both eye and camera have a focusing decide in the eye, the lens can be thickened or flattened. Both have an adjustable iris diaphragm. And both finally are encased in black to minimize the effects of stray light; in the eye this is done by a layer of darkly pigmented tissue, the choroid coat.
The retina: There are three main retinal layers: the rods and cones, which are the photoreceptors; the bipolar cells; and the, ganglion cells, whose axons make up the optic nerve. There are also two other kinds of cells, horizontal cells and amacrine cells, that allow for sideways (lateral) interaction As shown in the diagram, the retina contains an anatomical oddity. As it is constructed, the photoreceptors are at the very back, the bipolar cells are in between, and the ganglion cells are at the top. As a result, light has to pass through the other layers (they are not opaque so this is possible) to reach the rods and cone, whose stimulation starts the visual process.
A and B are the exact same shade of gray!