I was obviously not going to persist with this like you imply that I do.I'm judging your persistence on what you have already done. I'm not going to keep arguing with. If you get an actual warning from the moderation team, it will be specific and clear, and you can move any discussion about it to the Issues and Complaints section.
S J Klinko said,That is the Hard problem regardless of if we are Experiencing a Hallucination, a Dream, or an actual Perception of the world.
Yes but inside our brains we don’t have a “screen” onto which we project photons. Think holonomy which is not a screen but a networked quantum neural phenomenon in our brains.
Holonomic brain theory
Holonomic brain theory is a branch of neuroscience investigating the idea that human consciousness is formed by quantum effects in or between brain cells. This is opposed by traditional neuroscience, which investigates the brain's behavior by looking at patterns of neurons and the surrounding chemistry, and which assumes that any quantum effects will not be significant at this scale. The entire field of quantum consciousness is often criticized as pseudoscience, as detailed on the main article thereof.This specific theory of quantum consciousness was developed by neuroscientist Karl Pribram initially in collaboration with physicist David Bohm. It describes human cognition by modeling the brain as a holographic storage network.[1][2] Pribram suggests these processes involve electric oscillations in the brain’s fine-fibered dendritic webs, which are different from the more commonly known action potentials involving axons and synapses.[3][4][5] These oscillations are waves and create wave interference patterns in which memory is encoded naturally, and the waves may be analyzed by a Fourier transform.[3][4][5][6][7] Gabor, Pribram and others noted the similarities between these brain processes and the storage of information in a hologram, which can also be analyzed with a Fourier transform.[1][8] In a hologram, any part of the hologram with sufficient size contains the whole of the stored information. In this theory, a piece of a long-term memory is similarly distributed over a dendritic arbor so that each part of the dendritic network contains all the information stored over the entire network.[1][8][9] This model allows for important aspects of human consciousness, including the fast associative memory that allows for connections between different pieces of stored information and the non-locality of memory storage (a specific memory is not stored in a specific location, i.e. a certain cluster of neurons).[1][10][11]
And this concept is the very concept proposed by Hameroff and Penrose in the hypothesis of ORCH OR.
Orchestrated objective reduction
Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a biological philosophy of mind that postulates that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons. The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules. It is proposed that the theory may answer the hard problem of consciousness and provide a mechanism for free will.[1] The hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s by theoretical physicist Roger Penrose and anaesthesiologist and psychologist Stuart Hameroff. The hypothesis combines approaches from molecular biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, philosophy, quantum information theory, and quantum gravity.[2][3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
And the important role microtubules play in this scenario.
Microtubule computation
A: An axon terminal releases neurotransmitters through a synapse and are received by microtubules in a neuron’s dendritic spine.
B: Simulated microtubule tubulins switch states.[1]
Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates for quantum processing.[35] Microtubules are made up of tubulin protein subunits. The tubulin protein dimers of the microtubules have hydrophobic pockets that may contain delocalized π electrons. Tubulin has other, smaller non-polar regions, for example 8 tryptophans per tubulin, which contain π electron-rich indole rings distributed throughout tubulin with separations of roughly 2 nm. Hameroff claims that this is close enough for the tubulin π electrons to become quantum entangled.[36] During entanglement, particle states become inseparably correlated.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Microtubule_computation
Steven said, “… I was obviously not going to persist with this like you imply that I do…”
TimB: And yet you did persist in your very next line.
Steven said, “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.”
TimB: Parsimony and internal validity are not “intellectual laziness”. Now we could come up with complex faux-erudite explanations that make up false obstacles to understanding (like “the hard problem” or “redness”) and we could sound like we are real smart, industrious even, but it is a dead end. Because, honestly, I think it is just crap that gets in the way of actual understanding.
Yes, I think that seeing and being aware of seeing are behaviors that physically exist as neurological patterns firing off in our brains. Behaviors such as these are subject to the laws of behavior. Thus they can be understood as functional and as a product of present AND historical environmental contingencies and personal history.
Turn your attention to the behavior of walking. How can we explain walking? What is it, really? What about the “Hard Problem” of explaining walking? (There is no hard problem of walking? Well some guy, somewhere may come up with one. And away we go down a rabbit trail.) Shall we then, come up with some nonsense about a Human Walking Model, that pretends to explain (but really doesn’t) what walking really is?
Now consider “remembering” (another consciousness behavior). And some of Daniela Schiller’s study of memory.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/am-i-right/201307/your-memory-isnt-what-you-think-it-is
She says,
"Not only are our memories faulty (anyone who has uncovered old diaries knows that), but more importantly Schiller says our memories change each time they are recalled. What we recall is only a facsimile of things gone by.
Schiller says that memories are malleable constructs that are reconstructed with each recall. We all recognize that our memories are like Swiss cheese; what we now know is that they are more like processed cheese.
What we remember changes each time we recall the event. The slightly changed memory is now embedded as “real,” only to be reconstructed with the next recall.
One implication of Schiller’s work is that memory isn’t like a file in our brain but more like a story that is edited every time we tell it. To each re-telling there are attached emotional details. So when the story is altered feelings are also reshaped…"
So I say that behaviors change in accordance with environmental contingencies. Memories - each of which, I contend is a behavior that can change according to the contingencies it is exposed to.
If all conscious awareness is among the variety of cognitive processes (cognitive behaviors) that are available to us. They can be studied as behaviors following well established behavioral laws.
“Hard problems” and “CLS” do nothing to promote a legitimate understanding of consciousness, rather they detract from understanding by creating rabbit trails down which, there are endless and (IMO) useless discussion and debate.
Write4U: Yes but inside our brains we don’t have a “screen” onto which we project photons. Think holonomy which is not a screen but a networked quantum neural phenomenon in our brains.
Never said Photons are projected onto the Conscious Light Screen, only that our Conscious Visual Experiences are Projected onto that Screen. I’m merely pointing out where the Screen seems to be and I specifically state that nobody knows How the Conscious Visual Experiences are Projected onto that Screen.
Thank You for the links but I am already familiar with theories of Quantum Consciousness and the Hameroff Penrose ORCH OR. I also have hope for these QM related theories.
TimB: Yes, I think that seeing and being aware of seeing are behaviors that physically exist as neurological patterns firing off in our brains. Behaviors such as these are subject to the laws of behavior. Thus they can be understood as functional and as a product of present AND historical environmental contingencies and personal history.
Turn your attention to the behavior of walking. How can we explain walking? What is it, really? What about the “Hard Problem” of explaining walking? (There is no hard problem of walking? Well some guy, somewhere may come up with one. And away we go down a rabbit trail.) Shall we then, come up with some nonsense about a Human Walking Model, that pretends to explain (but really doesn’t) what walking really is?
If you think that the process of Walking is even remotely related to issues of Visual Perception, Sound Perception, Taste Perception, and etc. then it reveals that you do not properly understand the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You have said the Hard Problem is Crap. I still don’t get why you think that. If you have some insight into this just say why the Hard Problem is Crap. Just saying the Hard Problem is Crap without Explanations is just Crap.
TimB: She says,
“Not only are our memories faulty (anyone who has uncovered old diaries knows that), but more importantly Schiller says our memories change each time they are recalled. What we recall is only a facsimile of things gone by.
Schiller says that memories are malleable constructs that are reconstructed with each recall. We all recognize that our memories are like Swiss cheese; what we now know is that they are more like processed cheese.
What we remember changes each time we recall the event. The slightly changed memory is now embedded as “real,” only to be reconstructed with the next recall.
One implication of Schiller’s work is that memory isn’t like a file in our brain but more like a story that is edited every time we tell it. To each re-telling there are attached emotional details. So when the story is altered feelings are also reshaped…”
So I say that behaviors change in accordance with environmental contingencies. Memories – each of which, I contend is a behavior that can change according to the contingencies it is exposed to.
If all conscious awareness is among the variety of cognitive processes (cognitive behaviors) that are available to us. They can be studied as behaviors following well established behavioral laws.
Memories are all that. But we are talking about Conscious Visual Experience. If Conscious Visual Experience was as dependent on Memory as you think then we would never be able to See a new thing. The fact is we are Seeing new things all the time and the Visual Experience of new things is very accurate in general. The Visual Experience mechanism obviously tries to Anticipate what we will be looking at but as soon as we actually look at something, all the anticipated renderings of the Visual Scene evaporate and we are left with pure Visual Experience of what is really there. You put way too much emphasis on Memory and Anticipation than is actually involved in the Visual Experience.
TimB: “Hard problems” and “CLS” do nothing to promote a legitimate understanding of consciousness, rather they detract from understanding by creating rabbit trails down which, there are endless and (IMO) useless discussion and debate.
I will attribute your condemnation of the CLS to your total lack of understanding the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
Visualization is an awareness behavior. We do it when we visualize a memory or see something in a dream. But other internal behaviors often occur simultaneously, like sounds, like verbal behavior (all of this completely inside our own skin).
I have explained that concepts of “redness” and “Hard Problem” and CLS are concepts that do not help in the understanding of what consciousness is. In fact, I imagine that they prompt discussion and investigation that waste time and intellectual resources. My shorthand for this is it’s crap.
There doesn’t need to be a “screen” inside our brains. There doesn’t need to be something mysterious happening when we see something that appears to be red to us. Our perceptual behaviors relate to all of the things in our world that we perceive. I see a rose, in real life, and there is not a projection on to a screen inside my brain, other than the neurological correlates that are elicited. That’s it.
Now if I recall giving a rose to a loved one, and I simultaneously recall our conversation about it, then I am just recreating a facsimile of the visualization and hearing. (I guess you want to include a recording device in our brain other than the potential neurological firing itself, to explain our memory of sounds and words.)
As long as you rely on mysterious and supposedly insurmountable Problems that someone conceived of (i.e., “The Hard Problem”) you will be caught up with self stimulating intellectual activities that go nowhere in terms of elucidating mankind about Consciousness.
TimB:
Visualization is an awareness behavior. We do it when we visualize a memory or see something in a dream. But other internal behaviors often occur simultaneously, like sounds, like verbal behavior (all of this completely inside our own skin). I have explained that concepts of “redness” and “Hard Problem” and CLS are concepts that do not help in the understanding of what consciousness is. In fact, I imagine that they prompt discussion and investigation that waste time and intellectual resources. My shorthand for this is it’s crap.
We all know your shorthand is Crap.
TimB:
There doesn’t need to be a “screen” inside our brains. There doesn’t need to be something mysterious happening when we see something that appears to be red to us. Our perceptual behaviors relate to all of the things in our world that we perceive. I see a rose, in real life, and there is not a projection on to a screen inside my brain, other than the neurological correlates that are elicited. That’s it.
Yes, there doesn’t need to be a Screen, but the truth is that there is this undeniable Screen embedded in the front of all our faces showing us the Scene we are looking at.
TimB:
Now if I recall giving a rose to a loved one, and I simultaneously recall our conversation about it, then I am just recreating a facsimile of the visualization and hearing. (I guess you want to include a recording device in our brain other than the potential neurological firing itself, to explain our memory of sounds and words.) As long as you rely on mysterious and supposedly insurmountable Problems that someone conceived of (i.e., “The Hard Problem”) you will be caught up with self stimulating intellectual activities that go nowhere in terms of elucidating mankind about Consciousness.
You are making the Hard Problem Mysterious. For me it’s just a Problem to be solved, not to be ignored. If anybody had a Clue as to How Consciousness actually works I could be more inclined to think the Hard Problem was Crap. Zero Explanation logically leads to the reality of the Hard Problem. You need some Explanations before you go around saying the Hard Problem is Crap. Rambling on about Memories of Conscious Experiences is completely Irrelevant to the issue of what Conscious Experience is, i.e. the Hard Problem.
2 things Klinko,
-
Idk what you are talking about when you say “…there is this undeniable Screen embedded in the front of all our faces showing us the Scene we are looking at.” Is it something I can see in a mirror? What is the screen made of? Is this undeniable screen in the front of our face active when we visualize a scene, or see it in a dream?
-
Consciousness is the variety of cognitive consciousness behaviors that we engage in.
I can’t make the explanation simpler than that, yet you can’t process it.
Memories are one of the cognitive consciousness behaviors that we engage in. If memories are subject to modification by personal historical environmental experiences, then we can assume they are operant behaviors. It is therefore NOT irrelevant to a discussion of consciousness. Our understanding of consciousness can be vastly improved by a paradigm, wherein, we recognize that it is subject to behavior analysis.
Or we could develop useless constructs to create a faux problem that obstructs understanding, followed by the development of other useless constructs to address the initial useless construct. This useless intellectual endeavor will enlighten us not one bit. Maybe it will get some naïve researchers tenure somewhere, but that’s about it.
We all know your shorthand is Crap.Sounds like someone losing a rational argument. Come Steven step up your game.
TimB:
2 things Klinko,
- Idk what you are talking about when you say “…there is this undeniable Screen embedded in the front of all our faces showing us the Scene we are looking at.” Is it something I can see in a mirror? What is the screen made of? Is this undeniable screen in the front of our face active when we visualize a scene, or see it in a dream?
You can’t see the Screen in a mirror and you can’t see other people’s Screens. I’m just saying that if you follow the procedure in the OP and See where your Noise is that the Noise seems to be located slightly embedded in the front of your face. This is where the Screen seems to be. It’s not a Physical Space Screen. Since it is a Conscious Mind Phenomenon it is logical to call it is a Conscious Light Screen because it is where your Conscious Light is displayed. This seems to be the Screen where Dreams are displayed and where Awake images are displayed.
TimB:
2) Consciousness is the variety of cognitive consciousness behaviors that we engage in.
I can’t make the explanation simpler than that, yet you can’t process it.
I think you are talking about the general concept of Consciousness here. I don’t deal with general Consciousness, so what you say could be true. I am interested specifically in Conscious Sensory Perceptions. The Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, and etc…
TimB:
Memories are one of the cognitive consciousness behaviors that we engage in. If memories are subject to modification by personal historical environmental experiences, then we can assume they are operant behaviors. It is therefore NOT irrelevant to a discussion of consciousness. Our understanding of consciousness can be vastly improved by a paradigm, wherein, we recognize that it is subject to behavior analysis.
I think you are again talking about general Consciousness, where Memories might be important. But for the Experience of something like Redness Memories are probably 99% Irrelevant. The Redness is a thing in itself. What is it?
TimB:
Or we could develop useless constructs to create a faux problem that obstructs understanding, followed by the development of other useless constructs to address the initial useless construct. This useless intellectual endeavor will enlighten us not one bit. Maybe it will get some naïve researchers tenure somewhere, but that’s about it.
You never have explained why you think the Hard Problem is, as you like to say, Crap.
Citizenschallenge-v.3:
We all know your shorthand is Crap.
Sounds like someone losing a rational argument. Come Steven step up your game.
Yawn …
Klinko stated: “You can’t see the Screen in a mirror and you can’t see other people’s Screens. I’m just saying that if you follow the procedure in the OP and See where your Noise is that the Noise seems to be located slightly embedded in the front of your face. This is where the Screen seems to be. It’s not a Physical Space Screen. Since it is a Conscious Mind Phenomenon it is logical to call it is a Conscious Light Screen because it is where your Conscious Light is displayed. This seems to be the Screen where Dreams are displayed and where Awake images are displayed.”
Wow.
I have an ephemeral hypothetical construct in my sinus cavities? This is sure to advance the field of understanding consciousness? Not a physical screen, you say. Just an invisible non corporeal conceptual structure of a screen and my “Conscious Light” another hypothetical construct is circa my sinus cavities also. These constructs are supposed to elucidate, but they just clutter things up.
Also I blew my nose earlier. Do you think I may have blown out my Conscious Light Screen? It was a clear-ish mucous substance.
To TimB:
You want to deny what is staring you in the face. That’s ok with me.
I think though that if you did blow your CLS out your nose it would not be clear-ish but rather it would contain all the Colors and you would then be rendered Blind.
Actually the CLS is not visible, since it is JUST a mental CONSTRUCT. It does not actually exist anywhere in reality, not even in my sinuses.
I agree with Tim. What we think the brain sees is not photons. What we see is a controlled hallucination.
When I think of the sun I don’t see any light, I experience the memory of seeing light. Only the eyes experience the reception of photons directly on the retina, at which time the wave function collapses. The retina converts the light into electrochemical messages and by a process of efference to the brain and afference by the brain these electrical messages are experienced as a color image, but not as light.
The Brain and the Eye The eye works like a camera. The iris and the pupil control how much light to let into the back of the eye, much like the shutter of a camera. When it is very dark, our pupils get bigger, letting in more light; when it is very bright our irises constrict, letting in very little light.The lens of the eye, like the lens of a camera, helps us to focus. But just as a camera uses mirrors and other mechanical devices to focus, we rely on eyeglasses and contact lenses to help us to see more clearly.
The focus light rays are then directed to the back of the eye, on to the retina, which acts like the film in a camera. The cells in the retina absorb and convert the light to electrochemical impulses which are transferred along the optic nerve to the brain. The brain is instrumental in helping us see as it translates the image into something we can understand.
I think what SJKlinko identifies as a light screen is only the retina. From that point on there is no light, just electrochemical information.
This allows us to form colored images from memory. The brain cannot store light, it does not need to. Its that simple.
Write4U:
I agree with Tim. What we think the brain sees is not photons. What we see is a controlled hallucination.
When I think of the sun I don’t see any light, I experience the memory of seeing light. Only the eyes experience the reception of photons directly on the retina, at which time the wave function collapses. The retina converts the light into electrochemical messages and by a process of efference to the brain and afference by the brain these electrical messages are experienced as a color image, but not as light.
The Brain and the Eye
The eye works like a camera. The iris and the pupil control how much light to let into the back of the eye, much like the shutter of a camera. When it is very dark, our pupils get bigger, letting in more light; when it is very bright our irises constrict, letting in very little light.
The lens of the eye, like the lens of a camera, helps us to focus. But just as a camera uses mirrors and other mechanical devices to focus, we rely on eyeglasses and contact lenses to help us to see more clearly.
The focus light rays are then directed to the back of the eye, on to the retina, which acts like the film in a camera. The cells in the retina absorb and convert the light to electrochemical impulses which are transferred along the optic nerve to the brain. The brain is instrumental in helping us see as it translates the image into something we can understand.
The CLS is for Conscious Light not Physical Light (Photons). You must understand the difference between Conscious Light and Physical Light. If you keep talking about Photons and Retinas then you clearly do not understand what Conscious Light is. Conscious Light happens after the Retina and after all the Neural Processing that the Brain does. The Conscious Light is a product of the final Processing stage in the Visual Process. Conscious Light is a thing that happens in the Mind. Physical Light is a thing that happens out in the External World.