Some People Might Not Have Conscious Experiences

I have always assumed that all normally functioning Human Minds would have at least similar kinds of Conscious Experiences. I have thought this for decades. But after many years of discussions about this with people it has finally become clear to me that some people actually must not have Conscious Experiences or Qualia. I limit this observation to things like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste and so on. The Experience of Colors and especially the Experience of Redness has been a major target for my discussions with people on the various Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness Forums. There are people that flat out deny the Existence of the Experience of Redness. I think they give it their best shot at understanding it but they always fall back to just dismissing the Experience of something like Redness as pure Fantasy, Superstition, Magic, and Illusion. I have become convinced that their denials of Conscious Experience, their very words, show that they truly and simply do not Experience Redness as a kind of Experience. They are not Color blind so they can Detect Red in their Visual Field in some way but it seems to be more at the level of the Neural Activity. They can somehow sense that their Neurons are Firing for Red and indicate that there is Red in their Field of View but there seems to be no Experience of Redness in their Field of View. They deny any such extra Consciousness Phenomenon is happening. I used to think they were just messing with me, and I was hoping that after all these years that they would get tired of continuing their Fraud. But they are not messing with me, they truly do not have Conscious Experiences or Qualia. In fact they say that Qualia was invented by Idiot Philosophers. They are usually nasty and arrogant like that and I wonder if that is a symptom of their lack of Qualia. Interesting that their lack of Qualia would make them living examples of the P-Zombies from Philosophy. One thing I can say is that if they really never have had an Experience of something like Redness then I can completely understand how they would think it was something Magical, and Illusory. These people simply deny the Existence of Qualia and are completely stymied by talk of Qualia.

Another discussion thread I have participated in where the people denied the Existence of Qualia was one where the people were convinced that we cannot see a Color until we have a Word for the Color. This seems like a very strange thing to believe. I tried in vain to convince them that the Word for the Color does not make the Color real but that the direct Experience of the Color is real. They could not understand what I was talking about. This can only make sense if you consider that they might never have Experienced a Color Quale. They instead receive some kind of Signals from their Neurons that gives them some type Indication of the different Colors but without an actual Conscious Experience of the Colors. I can see how the Words might be of prime importance to them.

But yet another example of People that probably have no Conscious Experiences or Qualia are the people that don’t understand the difference between a Computer detecting Red and a Human detecting Red. They probably also just Detect Red in some way but have never had an actual Experience of Redness.

The evidence for this lack of Conscious Experience in some people is continuing to grow. It Explains the endless arguments about Conscious Experience and Qualia. These people simply do not have Qualia. The Lights are out in their Minds.

Steve,

But yet another example of People that probably have no Conscious Experiences or Qualia are the people that don’t understand the difference between a Computer detecting Red and a Human detecting Red.
Who doesn't understand this difference? The difference is simple, processing architecture.

Present day electronic computers do not have the processing architecture needed for experiences or qualia as we know them.

If a computer were built out neural elements with the same transfer functions as brain cells and interconnected in the same ways as all our brain cells are, then why would you think such a computer would not experience qualia?

 

stardusty psyche:
Who doesn’t understand this difference? The difference is simple, processing architecture.
Present day electronic computers do not have the processing architecture needed for experiences or qualia as we know them.
If a computer were built out neural elements with the same transfer functions as brain cells and interconnected in the same ways as all our brain cells are, then why would you think such a computer would not experience qualia?

They say that they don’t understand the difference between what existing Computers do and what the Human Mind does.

 

 

steveklinko said; They say that they don’t understand the difference between what existing Computers do and what the Human Mind does.
Max Tegmark proposes that it is mathematical patterns and constituent biochemical potentials which produce emergent properties over and above the sum of the parts.

He cites that there is absolutely no difference in the biochemistry between a living person and a (dead) frozen person. The difference is in the pattern arrangement of their constituent particles. He proposes that “consciousness” is an emergent property of the specific patterns in the neural network

This may be of interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzCvlFRISIM&t=142s

Lets ask an anesthesiologist. This is really good informative stuff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUVot-4GPM

Interoception is a subconscious brain function which is more concerned with “control” than with “observation”.

Interoception does not necessarily perceive where your internal organs are located (can you visualize where your spleen is?) , but deals only with the subconscious control of the organs and only signals your conscious brain when something goes wrong, like a stomach ache, a heart attack, or some such internal discomfort.

This is actually the most important function of the brain because your internal organs keep you alive. That’s why the brain has evolved the subconscious autonomous response systems, to keep the inside stuff functioning regardless of your state of consciousness. You can be unconscious, but your autonomous interoceptive brain functions keep your body functioning.

This is truly remarkable. There is a part of your brain which functions independent from your conscious ability of sensing and experiencing your external world. It acts just like a thermostat for your home heating system. Once the controls are set, the system works autonomously.

 

Write4u:
Max Tegmark proposes that it is mathematical patterns and constituent biochemical potentials which produce emergent properties over and above the sum of the parts.He cites that there is absolutely no difference in the biochemistry between a living person and a (dead) frozen person. The difference is in the pattern arrangement of their constituent particles. He proposes that “consciousness” is an emergent property of the specific patterns in the neural network

 

Thank You for the Links. I watched both of them even though I am already familiar with Emergence and Hammeroffs Orch OR. Neither of these does anything to solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness. First let me state the Hard Problem using the specific example of the Experience of Redness. Given:

  1. Neurons in the Brain fire for a Red input.
  2. A Conscious Experience of Redness happens in the Mind.

How does 1 produce 2? This is the simple question that must be answered.

Saying that the Experience of Redness just Emerges from the Neurons is not an Explanation. It is pure Religious Hope and Faith. There is no Scientific chain of Logic that can Explain how 1 produces 2. Orch OR presupposes that Consciousness happens at the Quantum level. This is pure Religious Hope and Faith again. Orch OR provides no chain of Logic that can Explain how 1 produces 2. However, I think that Orch OR is closer to the mark than Emergence because Quantum Mechanics has always seemed to have a connection to Consciousness, even as originally envisioned in the early 20th century.

 

It occurred to me that the people who claim they have no Qualia or Conscious Experiences like Redness, Standard A Toneness, or Salty Tasteness are actually not even Sentient Beings. Machines can Detect Red Electromagnetic Waves , or Detect a 440Hz Tone, or Detect the presence of Salt, but a Machine is not a Sentient Being. Likewise, the Physicalists are technically not Sentient Beings if their claim about not having Qualia is true.

Chalmers dismisses the most of you with the hard problem of consciousness unsolved. But differences in perception are interesting non-the-less. I had a friend in high school who was color blind, yet painted water and sky for example consistently different from his paint palette. This guy took LSD and was in demand for his very in trend murals, which seemed somewhat doodle graffiti and psychedelic. They gave him and A star but he ran off to the South of France, hippie style. Couldn’t stand his parents.

@pianowanParticipant Chalmers dismisses the most of you with the hard problem of consciousness unsolved. But differences in perception are interesting non-the-less. I had a friend in high school who was color blind, yet painted water and sky for example consistently different from his paint palette. This guy took LSD and was in demand for his very in trend murals, which seemed somewhat doodle graffiti and psychedelic. They gave him and A star but he ran off to the South of France, hippie style. Couldn’t stand his parents.
Some Scientists say the Neural Activity reveals exactly what a person's Conscious Mind is Experiencing. This is so untrue that it is Mind Boggling they could think that. Nobody knows what another Mind is Experiencing. We extrapolate from our own Experiences and think everybody has the same Experiences for the same input stimulus. This is a false assumption.

 

This is why I hate philosophical conversations. This sounds like voodoo to me. “Experience of Redness”? Am I supposed to know what that means? It’s not even a term that shows up in a search. I literally have no clue what the hell this conversation is about. It’s like a nutty conspiracy theory or ordering at Starbucks. You have to learn the secret language before you get to pretend it makes sense to you.

Widder, you must have missed the arbitrary use of capital letters in steveklinko’s posts. His intelligence is so far above ours we can’t even fathom way he writes, let alone the actual meaning!

Him have much smartness. We only dum dums. We no understand him smart words. Me so sad.

 

Dude, that is EXACTLY the impression I get of people who start conversations like this! Like they use completely made-up terms as if they’re absolutely ordinary, every-day terms that everyone should know for the sole purpose of feeling smart because they then have to explain to you the term they made up!

I’m getting an ever better understanding of philosophy, I think. Real philosophy is like science (and, in fact, is actually part of the scientific process). It is pure and beautiful and useful. And then some asshole comes along and says, “What if we’re all just part of a computer simulation?” and calls it philosophy.

I can’t imagine you haven’t heard of the fake Deepak Chopra quote website, but it you haven’t, check it out.

It’s entirely possible that the geniuses on this thread are using it to create their ‘enigmatic’ strings of words.

I have taken no philosophy courses and haven’t read a book on philosophy. My only exposure to it is through the incidental philosophy in the books I read and the videos I watch. But I still think I can spot a fake pretty quick. That’s not to say there aren’t a ton of legitimate concepts that are way over my head, but for the most part, the people who try to sound smart but aren’t, don’t quite have what it takes to convince me.

steve klink said;
  1. Neurons in the Brain fire for a Red input.
  2. A Conscious Experience of Redness happens in the Mind.

How does 1 produce 2? This is the simple question that must be answered.


OK, we have some “hard facts” Exposure to red wavelengths does in fact produce the experience of seeing “red”.

  1. It is also “hard fact”, neurons in the brain do fire with a “red” input. This has been confirmed and is no longer a "hard problem’.

  2. It is a “hard problem” of an emotional response to the neurons processing the “red data” and responding with a chemical that produces a “red” experience from memory, not much different than responding emotionally to chemicals which produce an “angry” emotional response.

Saying that the Experience of Redness just Emerges from the Neurons is not an Explanation. It is pure Religious Hope and Faith. There is no Scientific chain of Logic that can Explain how 1 produces 2. Orch OR presupposes that Consciousness happens at the Quantum level. This is pure Religious Hope and Faith again.

 


Not at all. Tegmark posits that we have all the information necessary to explain all of these phenomena and there is no “additional” ingredient necessary to explain how it works. This is a relatively new science due to the fact that only recently have we been able to 'look" at micro-level biochemical behaviors and the neural responses that may be triggered by biochemical processes.

Orch OR provides no chain of Logic that can explain how 1 produces 2. However, I think that Orch OR is closer to the mark than Emergence because Quantum Mechanics has always seemed to have a connection to Consciousness, even as originally envisioned in the early 20th century.
Yes it does, we know it does, it's a hard fact. We just haven't figured out the how yet. But that does not make it necessary to introduce a mystical aspect to macro quantum functions and potential emotional responses to "informational data" emerging from an ever greater complexity in the neural network and the ability to experience sensory input in specific ways conducive to survival.

ORCH OP (Orchestrated Objective Reduction)

While mainstream theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebral neurons increases,[4][5] Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons.[6] The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout lattices of microtubules. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from London forces, or magnetic, due to electron spin—and possibly also due to nuclear spins (that can remain isolated for longer periods) that occur in gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz frequency ranges.[2][7]

Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), influence or orchestrate qubit state reduction by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states.[8] The latter is based on Penrose’s objective-collapse theory for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the space-time curvature of these states in the universe’s fine-scale structure.[9]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

It really doesn’t make a difference if the emotional response is from ORCH OR or some other “emergent” quality during processing sensory information.

Consider “empathy”, a function of “mirror neurons” which allows an observer to “experience” the emotions of another person. This phenomenon of consciousness is fairly well explained and IMO, is directly related to the “hard problem” of self-referential consciousness.

OK, we have some “hard facts” Exposure to red wavelengths does in fact produce the experience of seeing “red”.
  1. It is also “hard fact”, neurons in the brain do fire with a “red” input. This has been confirmed and is no longer a “hard problem’.

  2. It is a “hard problem” of an emotional response to the neurons processing the “red data” and responding with a chemical that produces a “red” experience from memory, not much different than responding emotionally to chemicals which produce an “angry” emotional response.


No one says 1 is a Hard Problem it has always been referred to as the Easy Problem.

What do you mean when you say a Chemical produces a “red” experience or an “angry” emotional response?

Not at all. Tegmark posits that we have all the information necessary to explain all of these phenomena and there is no “additional” ingredient necessary to explain how it works. This is a relatively new science due to the fact that only recently have we been able to ‘look” at micro-level biochemical behaviors and the neural responses that may be triggered by biochemical processes.
So then what is the Explanation of How it works?
Yes it does, we know it does, it’s a hard fact. We just haven’t figured out the how yet. But that does not make it necessary to introduce a mystical aspect to macro quantum functions and potential emotional responses to “informational data” emerging from an ever greater complexity in the neural network and the ability to experience sensory input in specific ways conducive to survival.
That's always the Hard Problem for any theory of Consciousness. Go ahead and figure out How, then you will Have something.

@write4u I’m sorry, but I have to ask; Are you a robot from the future? Have a big database of things in your head just waiting to come out, do you? Your posts are always so informative and full of information that I can follow just about half your thought. Seriously though, I love when you go all science-ninja in a thread. I learn something on the days I’m not too lazy.

@write4u, your posts are what I was talking about when I said, “That’s not to say there aren’t a ton of legitimate concepts that are way over my head…”.

I wish I understood all of what you’re saying, but I don’t have a foundation to work with. It is cool to read though.

Thanks for all those kind words.

I am really not that well schooled. But I usually know where to look for information and that saves years of study… :slight_smile:

I do a lot of reading and research on the net, then try to find “common denominators”, which are shared by objects and organisms with similar shared properties. And I take the liberty to quote (with credit) what I consider as pertinent to my argument. IOW, I try to let true experts do the talking for me. My contribution is to try and tie various seemingly unconnected phenomena together in a logical argument.

For instance; microtubules are a “common denominator” of ALL Eukaryotic organisms. And microtubules are instrumental in a host of fundamental homeostatic functions in all living organisms.

Homeostasis, In biology, homeostasis is the state of steady internal, physical, and chemical conditions maintained by living systems.[1] This is the condition of optimal functioning for the organism and includes many variables, such as body temperature and fluid balance, being kept within certain pre-set limits (homeostatic range).
One of those regulators is the microtubule, an amazing self-organizing dynamical nano-scale information processing system which may be found by the trillions in say, a human organism..... :)

Microtubules are polymers of tubulin that form part of the cytoskeleton and provide structure and shape to eukaryotic cells. Microtubules can grow as long as 50 micrometres and are highly dynamic. The outer diameter of a microtubule is between 23 and 27 nm[2] while the inner diameter is between 11 and 15 nm.[3] They are formed by the polymerization of a dimer of two globular proteins, alpha and beta tubulin into protofilaments that can then associate laterally to form a hollow tube, the microtubule.[4] The most common form of a microtubule consists of 13 protofilaments in the tubular arrangement.

Microtubules are one of the cytoskeletal filament systems in eukaryotic cells. The microtubule cytoskeleton is involved in the transport of material within cells, carried out by motor proteins that move on the surface of the microtubule.
Microtubules are very important in a number of cellular processes. They are involved in maintaining the structure of the cell and, together with microfilaments and intermediate filaments, they form the cytoskeleton. They also make up the internal structure of cilia and flagella. They provide platforms for intracellular transport and are involved in a variety of cellular processes, including the movement of secretory vesicles, organelles, and intracellular macromolecular assemblies (see entries for dynein and kinesin).[5] They are also involved in cell division (by mitosis and meiosis) and are the major constituents of mitotic spindles, which are used to pull eukaryotic chromosomes apart.

Microtubules are nucleated and organized by microtubule organizing centers (MTOCs), such as the centrosome found in the center of many animal cells or the basal bodies found in cilia and flagella, or the spindle pole bodies found in most fungi.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

p.s. MT provide the copying mechanism of mitosis (cell division). Think about implication of that natural function. It is essential in the formation and maintenance of several shared fundamental properties of living systems!

General Properties of Living Systems The most outstanding general features that have arisen during life's history include chemical uniqueness; complexity and hierarchical organization; reproduction (heredity and variation); possession of a genetic program; metabolism; development; and environmental interaction.
https://biocyclopedia.com/index/general_zoology/general_properties_of_living_systems.php

My latest question is: “Does Chaos Theory prove the mathematical nature of the Universe.”

Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory stating that, within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[3] The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[4] A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a hurricane in Texas.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

IMO, this definition of Chaos Theory suggest a mathematical self-organizing equation and function in a dynamic medium (the early Universe), creating those mathematical patterns from a disordered state, including the exponential function.

a… Mathematical Universe…?

Steve Klinko said: "What do you mean when you say a Chemical produces a “red” experience or an “angry” emotional response?"
It is a function of the Mirror Neural System (MNS). It produces chemical experiential reactions upon viewing something. Look it up.

Have I mentioned this excellent video yet. It bears repetitive viewing. This is really cool stuff.

https://youtu.be/lyu7v7nWzfo