Levels of Understanding For the Human Visual Experience

  1. Naive Realism Level: When we were young and Naive we looked out at the World and assumed that the Visual Experience that we were Seeing was what the External World actually looked like. We did not think Deeper about what this Visual Experience actually could be. It was so simple then, we just looked out into the World and thought we Saw the World as it was. As we examined our Visual Experiences we could See that the different Objects out there had different Colors. We thought that the Colors were a direct Property of the things that we were Looking at. At this Level we thought our Visual Experience was painted with all the different Colors of all the Objects that are out there.

  2. Physical Light Level: Most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask a question: "How does this Visual Experience actually happen? It all seemed so simple when we were at the Naive Realist Level, but we have Learned, Matured, and began Thinking and Questioning things. We took some Science courses and found out that we don’t directly See Objects in the World but rather we See the reflected Light from these Objects. This was a fantastic new Realization. Now when we observed our Visual Experience we could understand that we were merely Seeing reflected Light from Objects in the External World. We realized that our Visual Experience was now painted with all the possible Physical Light (Electromagnetic) Wavelengths that our Eye could Detect. From this Perspective we thought we were Seeing the actual Physical Light that was hitting the Retina. We thought that the Colors were a direct Property of the Electromagnetic Physical Light that we were Looking at. We were closer to Reality because at least we now understood that we were not Seeing the actual Objects anymore.

  3. Neural Light Level: Even though we knew it was the Physical Light, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask a question: "How does this Visual Physical Light Experience actually happen? It all seemed so simple when we were at the Physical Light Level, but we have Learned more, Matured more, and began Thinking and Questioning things even more than ever. We took some courses in Brain Physiology and realized that we don’t directly See the Physical Light that seemed to make up our Visual Experience. We found out that the Visual experience that we See requires Neural Activity. This was again a fantastic new Realization. We were Seeing the result of Neurons Firing. From this Perspective we thought we were Seeing the effect of our own internal Neurons Firing. We were closer to Reality because at least we now understood that we were not Seeing the actual Physical Light anymore. Our Visual Experience was still painted with all the Colors that we have always Seen but we now knew that these Colors were generated Internally by our Brains and we understood that all these Colors were never something that was External. The Colors became Properties of Neural Activity. The Light was now understood to be something Inside of us.

  4. Conscious Light Level: When we were at the Naive Realist Level it made sense that our Visual Experience was actually showing us what the External World looked like. When we were at the Physical Light Level it made sense that our Visual Experience was actually showing us what the Physical Light looked like. But when we attained the Neural Light Level there was not the same feeling that it made Sense. In fact it made no Sense that the Neural Activity produced the beautiful panoramic Color Visual Experience that we all have. Where, after all, were all those Colors coming from in the Neurons? How could Firing Neurons have a Property of Color? There was a problem here because we could not find any courses to take that would answer this latest question. Science had effectively hit a Brick Wall on this question. There was an Explanatory Gap at the Neural Light Level. It was clear that our Visual Experience was still that panoramic, Color filled, Experience that we always had. The Light was still there, being generated by the Brain in some way. But there was no Chain of Logic that could take us from Neurons Firing to the Visual Light Experience. It became an item of Faith that Science would figure out what the required Chain of Logic would be. Humanity has tried for a hundred years to figure this out. But there is nothing to show for the effort. All we know is that Neural Activity happens and then a Visual Light Experience happens. It all seemed so simple when we were at the Neural Light Level, but we have Learned more, Matured more, and began Thinking Deeper about the Visual Experience. Even though we knew it was the Neurons, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask the question: "How does this Visual Light Experience actually happen from the Neural Activity? It became clear that new ways of Thinking about the problem must be developed. This is what Science is supposed to do. This is how Science progresses. But instead, a lot of Scientists are still trying to push the Visual Light Experience back into the Neurons, but the Visual Light Experience refuses to be pushed into the Neurons. The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way. The Visual Light Experience simply hovers and is embedded in the front of our faces. We sense that it must be some kind of Conscious Experience concept that happens in some kind of Conscious Mind concept. But we cannot know that for sure. It just seems to be our best Speculation for progressing forward. What we are Seeing is our own Internal Conscious Light. We have never Seen an actual Object out in the World, nor do we See the actual reflected Light from an Object, nor do we See actual Neural Activity. Instead, we have always only Seen our own Internal Conscious Light. It is this Conscious Light (not Physical Electromagnetic Light) that is generated by our Internal Brian/Mind mechanism. The Inter Mind website is devoted to exploring this new Conscious Light concept and how it could fit in with a Conscious Mind concept.

The Inter Mind website is devoted to exploring this new Conscious Light concept and how it could fit in with a Conscious Mind concept.
IMO, conscious awareness of light is no different than any other conscious sensory awareness. The brain receives electro-chemical signal via the neural system and compares it to what it "knows" about the incoming signals. The brain then makes a "best guess" of what it can recognize and is able to fill in the blanks.

This excellent presentation explains the mechanics of consciousness, perception, and interoception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo&t=8s

 

write4u:
IMO, conscious awareness of light is no different than any other conscious sensory awareness. The brain receives electro-chemical signal via the neural system and compares it to what it “knows” about the incoming signals. The brain then makes a “best guess” of what it can recognize and is able to fill in the blanks.
This excellent presentation explains the mechanics of consciousness, perception, and interoception.

Same video you always post on my topics. I have explained why this Video is interesting but not very helpful. Are you a Bot?

Same video you always post on my topics. I have explained why this Video is interesting but not very helpful. Are you a Bot?
He is a bot. So are you, if the definition of a bot is an autonomous program on a network that can interact with other bots.

You are wholly invested in your complicated inter mind theory which is built upon simple conventional ideas of reality. All I need to do is take apart one simple conventional idea and your complicated theory is toast.

I am also a bot. Do you want to play?

sree:
He is a bot. So are you, if the definition of a bot is an autonomous program on a network that can interact with other bots. You are wholly invested in your complicated inter mind theory which is built upon simple conventional ideas of reality. All I need to do is take apart one simple conventional idea and your complicated theory is toast. I am also a bot. Do you want to play?

That’s why I post. Go for it.

 

1) Naive Realism Level: When we were young and Naive we looked out at the World and assumed that the Visual Experience that we were Seeing was what the External World actually looked like. We did not think Deeper about what this Visual Experience actually could be.
Do you know how young I was when I looked out at the external World at the 1) Naive Realism Level? I was in Grade 4. My teacher explained the 2) Physical Light Level to me and told me that the World I saw was not external. "No way!" I told her as I grabbed her around the waist with my arms. To this day, I don't accept that she was an image inside my head. I think you need to sell this bullshit to me before we discuss 3) and 4).

Ignore the sarcasm, what do you say?

sree:
Do you know how young I was when I looked out at the external World at the 1) Naive Realism Level? I was in Grade 4. My teacher explained the 2) Physical Light Level to me and told me that the World I saw was not external. “No way!” I told her as I grabbed her around the waist with my arms. To this day, I don’t accept that she was an image inside my head. I think you need to sell this bullshit to me before we discuss 3) and 4).
Ignore the sarcasm, what do you say?

Sorry if you are stuck at the Naïve Realism stage. You should go back and repeat Grade School. This is a College Level discussion.

we don’t directly See Objects in the World but rather we See the reflected Light from these Objects. This was a fantastic new Realization. -- Stephen
Really not. You just flipped the words around.
the Visual experience that we See requires Neural Activity. This was again a fantastic new Realization.
Nope, not that either. We have a brain, not really that big of a deal.
The Light was now understood to be something Inside of us.
Whoops, we really went wrong there.
In fact it made no Sense that the Neural Activity produced the beautiful panoramic Color Visual Experience that we all have.
Because we were daydreaming during all those science classes before
The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way.
So we come up with twisted statements like this.

To: lausten

You must be at the Naïve Realist Level of understanding the Human Visual Experience along with sree. I know there is nothing I can say to sway you so I won’t even try.

I know there is nothing I can say
That would be good.
steveklinko said; Same video you always post on my topics. I have explained why this Video is interesting but not very helpful
No I am a real person trying to steer you in the direction of objective analysis of the sensory ability for vision. Apparently you have not understood Anil Seth, else you would not persist in this silly attempt to make vision into a magical property of all sighted animals and many non-sighted plant species who use photosynthesis to convert sunlight into energy.

You may want to begin with this scientific fact.

This 530-Million-Year-Old Fossil Could Be The Oldest Eye Ever Discovered

Palaeontologists have found what could well be the oldest example of a fossilised eye the world has ever seen, preserved for over half a billion years.

It belongs to a trilobite - a class of once-abundant early arthropods that peaked in the Cambrian Period and thrived in the world’s oceans for over 270 million years.

These days we think of the squat, three-lobed sea creatures as the distant ancestors of modern crabs and spiders, and fossil records have shown that these incredibly successful animals were among the earliest beings on Earth to possess a sense of vision.

In fact, they sported a type of compound eye - the optical organ crammed full of vision cells we still see today in flies, bees, and many other arthropods.

But even though researchers have seen evidence of compound eyes in Cambrian trilobite fossils before, the internal structure and function of these proto-eyes remained a mystery.

Now researchers from Estonia, Germany, and Scotland have described a truly exceptional find - a 530-million-year-old trilobite so well preserved, they were able to discern its compound eye at a cellular level.

“The trilobite to which [the eye] belongs is found in a zone where the first complete organisms appear in the fossil record; thus, it is probably the oldest record of a visual system that ever will be available,” the team writes in the study.

The remarkably preserved fossil, belonging to a species called Schmidtiellus reetae, was collected in Saviranna in northern Estonia.


https://www.sciencealert.com/oldest-eye-ever-evolution-fossil-evidence-530-million-years-trilobite

The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way.
Well that's like saying a light in the living room is something separate from the electrical circuit, even though we know it is probably connected to the electrical activity in some way. Do you see why Lausten is less than interested in your profound observation?

Here is the eye.

We do not see light inside the brain. We experience light inside the brain. Descartes “brain in a vat” explains that the brain can be fooled into believing it is walking in the sunshine in the park.

Our brain can only make a best guess of what it experiences from incoming neural signals. It’s connection with the environment is exclusively via sensory neural inputs.

@steveklinko,

You may want to look a little deeper into the anatomy of a neuron, and make a special note about the trillions of ‘microtubules’ which are the heart of the neural information highways .

To write4u:

Thank You. Nice diagrams, but I have been studying these things for 20+ years. The role Microtubules play in Consciousness is highly speculative at best. Fact is nobody knows what is going on with Consciousness at this point in time. Huge Hard Problem and Explanatory Gap exists in the Scientific understanding of Consciousness.

"We have never Seen an actual Object out in the World, nor do we See the actual reflected Light from an Object, nor do we See actual Neural Activity. Instead, we have always only Seen our own Internal Conscious Light. It is this Conscious Light (not Physical Electromagnetic Light) that is generated by our Internal Brian/Mind mechanism. "

Why is your flowery speech limited to human sight? Octopus, gnats, owls and lobsters all have eyes. Nothing new-agey or so amazing it’s worth capitalizing every third word when describing their ability to see. Why is human sight special?

3point14r:
Why is your flowery speech limited to human sight? Octopus, gnats, owls and lobsters all have eyes. Nothing new-agey or so amazing it’s worth capitalizing every third word when describing their ability to see. Why is human sight special?

Typical Obfuscation and Diversion from someone who just does not want to talk about the topic of the OP.

I did talk about the topic of the OP. But I also posed this question to help me understand the point of the OP: why you believe human sight is different in any way than the same ability found in other animals?

Until I know what you’re talking about, it is impossible to answer you.

 

P.S. - I Try not to obfuscate or divert From the topic at Hand unless it is necessary To Clarify some part of the discussion That Is Unclear. An example of This is my Question Above - without knowing What you are talking About, There Is no way I can respond. If you want to avoid needless Quibbles And misunderstandings, you Need To be clear in your messaging.

P.P.S. - The proper use of capital letters is another way of making sure your message is as easy to understand as possible. We have rules that define how to write properly because it makes communication easier. Not knowing or following all of the rules is fine (at least I hope it’s fine because I don’t know a lot of them), but ignoring the simplest and most common ones is not advised if you want to be taken seriously. That said, If you have reasons for capitalizing random words, please let us know what they are!

steveklinko said: Huge Hard Problem and Explanatory Gap exists in the Scientific understanding of Consciousness.
Only if you make it mysterious. There is no light inside a skull, the brain resides in total darkness (absence of light). When we see a lighted object we do not generate light inside our brain, we experience light as a neural excitation. Perhaps a better example is "pain" as a neural excitation. When we stub our toe, the pain we feel is not inside our brain, it's in our toe. The brain merely translates the neural excitation into a experiential event.

And so it does in translating “light”. Our brain and skull remain dark, but the brain translates the neural input as an experiential event.

If we are blind we are unable to experience “sight” altogether. There is only darkness. OTOH some people can taste light and color. This is possible because it is not a representation of reality, but only a “best guess” by the brain of what it is experiencing.

@steve,

Consider this; a blind person can generate a mental picture of his surroundings by sonar. Many animals use echo-location to scan and visualize their environment.

Explore The World's Most Detailed Map Of The Seafloor
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_1600/ge7h8kurxklmg5hcoazo.jpg

https://io9.gizmodo.com/explore-the-worlds-most-detailed-map-of-the-seafloor-r-1642315933

3point14r:
P.S. – I Try not to obfuscate or divert From the topic at Hand unless it is necessary To Clarify some part of the discussion That Is Unclear. An example of This is my Question Above – without knowing What you are talking About, There Is no way I can respond. If you want to avoid needless Quibbles And misunderstandings, you Need To be clear in your messaging.
P.P.S. – The proper use of capital letters is another way of making sure your message is as easy to understand as possible. We have rules that define how to write properly because it makes communication easier. Not knowing or following all of the rules is fine (at least I hope it’s fine because I don’t know a lot of them), but ignoring the simplest and most common ones is not advised if you want to be taken seriously. That said, If you have reasons for capitalizing random words, please let us know what they are!

I don’t study animal Consciousness and cannot study animal Consciousness. The only Consciousness that anyone can study is their own. We can then compare notes about our own findings when we discuss Consciousness.

If you want to be a Grammar Zombie then go post on a Grammar Forum.