Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ramu
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:55 pm

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Ramu » Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:37 am

Neuroscience will NEVER solve the hard problem. Ever. Why? Because neuroscientists for the most part think that consciousness is produced by brains and that mind is a function of brain. They have it bass ackwards. Consciousness is first order. In other words brains and neuroscience occur in Consciousness. All this scientific and extremely LIMITED research into consciousness as a function of brain will keep the Materialists and Physicalists chasing their collective tails for the next thousand years. Consciousness is the only thing in existence.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:00 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 pm
Your experience of Redness may very well be different from mine. But it will certainly be something close.
What is your metric for "similarity" and "difference"?
What is your referent/paragon for "redness experience" ?
How "very different" is "close"?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 pm
For example I don't think you are Smelling Bleach when you See Red.
Non-sensical claim. My experience of "red" could be your experience of smelling bleach.

Your experience of red today, may be your smell of bleach tomorrow. That is exactly the point of synesthesia.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 pm
If you are not color blind you are probably having quite the same experience as I do.
This is a baseless claim. Science already tells us that trichromats, tetrachromats and pentachromats experience it differently.

How differently? 7?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 pm
For purposes of studying Conscious perception we assume we are having similar Experiences.
That's unscientific. The point of science is to discover what there is. Not to assume its existence.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:10 pm

I Like Sushu wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:50 am
Steve -

Here is a slice of text from what I’m currently reading that touches in this matter:
In addition to this difficulty of reaching firm results, capable of being self-evidently reidentified on many occasions, we have the further difficulty of stating such results, of communicating them to others. Completely self-evident truths essence, established by the most exact analysis, must be expounded by way of expressions whose rich variety does not compensate for the fact that they only fit familiar natural objects, while the experiences in which such objects become constituted for consciousness, can be directly referred to only by way of a few highly ambiguous words such as ‘sensation’, ‘perception’, ‘presentation’ etc.,. One has, further, to employ expressions which stand for what is intentional in such acts, for the object to which they are directed, since it is, in fact, impossible to describe referential acts without using expressions which recur to the things to which such acts refer. One then readily forgets that such subsidiarily described objectivity, which is necessarily introduced into almost all phenomenological description, has undergone a change of sense, in virtue of which it now belongs to the sphere of phenomenology.

Husserl, ‘Logical Investigations’, book II, section 3
Note: “object”, as Husserl uses the term, doesn’t refer to “physical object” - he uses ‘object’ so as to refer to any entity (imagined or otherwise, concrete or abstract)
Thank You for this well written post. I consider the Red that I Experience in my Mind as an Object of Consciousness. The Red is how the Mind Detects certain Wavelengths of Electromagnetic Waves. The Red that I Experience is not a property of those Electromagnetic Waves. The Red that I Experience is a Surrogate for the Electromagnetic Phenomenon. The Red in my Mind has a Property of Redness. I think you can study the Redness of Red without reference to any other Object. The Redness itself is the Object.

I Like Sushu wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:50 am
When it comes to the ‘hard problem’ I’m fairly convinced - and have been long before I read the above quote - that we don’t currently possess a concise enough set of concepts to frame the ‘hard problem’ let alone possess a set of concepts to help navigate a better sense of understanding.

I’m not wholly cleaved to this as the only path to go down phenomenologically though. If it is a path you wish to explore at the expense of the full scope of phenomenology (as Husserl provides; a nascent set of Investigations into consciousness) then maybe you’ll find more satisfaction in Heidegger’s work Being and Time and find use for his take on the terminology useful for this kind if task - the ‘beings being of beingness’ and such; loosely framed as Dasein. Just be aware that Heidegger’s path is a hermeneutical path ,an interpretative path, rather than being like the raw open wound of the phenomenological ‘regard’.

Reading either is something akin to wading through treacle. It seems to me that Husserl’s disregard toward ‘conclusions’ is the strength of the phenomenological approach whereas Heidegger’s approach is constantly haunted by terminology, pursuit of meaning, and a necessarily narrow view through the lens of word play and a form of relativism - but he does manage to offer some decent examples of what Husserl is pointing towards in terms of the semiotics involved with language and understanding.

In short, I’m not interested in talk of the ‘hard problem’ if the question possesses a whole species of concepts embedded within it that remain unattended and/or willfully covered over.
Yes I am only interested in Sensory Perceptions right now. We should be able to analyze the processing chain for Sensory Perceptions. Science has done remarkable work in discovering How the Brain works. But Science cannot make that leap from the Neural Activity in the Brain to Explaining How the Sensory Experience happens. To simplify, I like to specialize my study to the Visual Sense. I think a good statement of the Hard Problem for this special case is, given that:

1) Neural Activity happens for Red.
2) An Experience of Red happens.

The Hard Problem asks the question: Given that 1 happens, How does 2 happen? I think this is sufficient to frame the problem.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:50 am
As for ‘redness’ it is like asking about ‘numberness’. I don’t experience numbers in any direct sensible manner. I experience the concept, yet I am never ‘embracing’ the concept of number when I do mathematics. I simply apply the concept to my sensibility, as I apply my experience of the concept ‘redness’ to my sensibility. I don’t need the concept of ‘redness’ - the thought ‘redness’ - in order to have phenomenal experience of some red object. In the same manner I don’t need to articulate the concept ‘pain’ in order to feel pain.
I actually don't understand the comparison of Redness to Numberness. Redness is a Sensory Experience and Numberness is something else entirely.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:50 am
Our major difficulty is reading between the lines (like with my fumbling attempts above). We can also look at this in terms of explicit memory. If you punch me in the face I feel pain, yet when I forget about the event the pain is no longer there and if my memory of the event only lasts for 10 seconds then, in some sense, I ‘felt no pain’ whilst in another sense I only possessed the experience of pain briefly. I can certainly feel the same pain again, yet when I do I won’t be ‘reminded’ of a previous event - it will be a wholly new experience.

In a reply somewhere above from Skepdick they touched on something true for us all. We don’t understand what we are saying, none of us. Getting to grips with such is an almost nihilistic task; it’s unsurprising that post-modernism took an ugly turn when you look at how close to the abyss such serious contemplation take place.

The wisdom I’ve found in the general underlying principle of phenomenology is not to understate the obvious. That which we pay no heed to is likely, and often so psychologically (you can confirm this to yourself if you’re brave enough to see mistakes made), the crux of the problem it seems wholly disassociated from.

The fact that I can move is utterly bizarre! I have legs that make weird movements and then I seem to traverse spaces and eat up distances whilst birthing a new distance in my wake. Then there is my temporal regard of this, where my ‘moving’ is an “-ing”, a continuity. My thoughts also have a sense of ‘movement’ to them as the culminate into worded items or are expressed into vague or vivid images. My knowledge of ‘being on Earth’ is hardly ever something I attend to consciously, it is a superfluous speck of knowledge on one hand yet a dauntingly abyssal beast that springs up like a leviathan when I bring my sense of being into direct confrontation with this ‘being on Earth’ - it both hulks over me and yet possesses a complete finite meaning; a strange comforting, and uncomfortable, ‘obviousness’ of my human experience.
All good observations.
I Like Sushu wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:50 am
Contemplating ‘redness’ is just a doorway into the whole regard we cloth our sense of being with. In the phenomenological mindset the ‘non-physical’ or ‘physical’ are bracketed out. All the matters is the phenomenon, the ‘consciousness of’ not some extrapolated ‘otherness’ as the ‘otherness’ IS the ‘consciousness of’ whilst having no qualitative possession (other than in this crude worded form).

I’m not the best at expressing these things and make no apologies for this. I understand there is a limit and sometimes I reach out hopefully in order to find a better means if expressing what is essentially an endless and infinite object - to explain ‘absolutely’ to me is not to ‘explain’ at all. No explanation is required for what is given with a ‘pure obviousness’.
If you are saying that the Redness is a thing in itself devoid of any reference to anything else then I agree.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:21 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:51 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:27 pm
The question is not How do Machines Detect Red

it is How do we Detect Red?
Steve, a machine is known, it's an image in consciousness known only to conscious knowing. A machine is a conceptual image and can be pointed to as an object within conscious knowing...but can the seer / the conscious knowing of the known seen object be pointed to?

Then you ask how do ''we'' detect red...first of all before we can know the answer to how we detect red we need to be able to point to the ''we'' that is experiencing the red. Notice a machine can be pointed at, but can the 'we' that can point to a machine...can that same 'we' point to the 'we' that is pointing?

In other words...Can the 'we' that is pointing at an object point to the pointer of the object? ..as in there is definitely a seeing of red .. red is seen absolutely, but can the seer of the seen red ...be seen too? and if it can, what will be seeing the seer? what will the seer look like?

What if the seer in that moment of seeing red looks like the colour red?
Yes it is very clear that we are the Red in some way. We all have our own Redness and we expect that the Redness that other people have will be similar, assuming correctly functioning Visual Systems.

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:51 am
What's happening here, is there is an assumption that red is seen, and so that seen red implies there must be a seer, else how would red be seen..so instead of focusing on the SEEN RED....why not just shift away from what is seen to who or what is actually seeing here?

So the question is, what does the 'we' look like that sees the colour red?
Now the most obvious answer is consciousness.

So then we are back to square one again, how does a conscious experience ..experience a conscious experience?
Can the consciousness that sees an object, see itself as the seer of the object, or can the seer only focus on the object of seeing and not on the actual seer?

And then there's another strange thing about consciousness...in that consciousness cannot experience itself as the object it sees....it's never the object, but is the seer of the object.

Now the only reason I can think of why consciousness is able to see red is because consciousness has no colour and is why actual colour can be seen via the contrast, in the same context a word cannot be seen or read without the bank screen of the computer behind the word, inseparable from the word.

So back to the 'we' that is assumed to be seeing.

If 'we' don't know what the 'we' looks like..the 'we' who is assumed to be seeing red, then what hope of ever knowing how this red is seen or experienced at all?

So another question arises...if consciousness is the blank screen behind the experience of red...and consciousness cannot experience itself as the red, but can only know the red...then who or what is experiencing red...the answer is in the question, the answer is the blank screen of consciousness, aka no thing is experiencing consciousness that is experiencing the thing known as red...it's an infinite self sustaining feedback loop within itself. In that in the moment red is known..that gives birth to the knower/seer that cannot be known. Both the seer and the seen have to exist simultaneously in the exact same moment as ONE.

So then another question arises...how can ONE exist...how can the notion of ONENESS be?
And yet IT IS without doubt or error.

I'd appreciate your feedback on what I've just written Steve, thanks.

.
Yes we could study the Conscious Self itself but it is even more elusive than the Experience. Ironic since that is what we are. The understanding of Redness will no doubt involve some sort of Conscious Self.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:24 pm

Ramu wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:37 am
Neuroscience will NEVER solve the hard problem. Ever. Why? Because neuroscientists for the most part think that consciousness is produced by brains and that mind is a function of brain. They have it bass ackwards. Consciousness is first order. In other words brains and neuroscience occur in Consciousness. All this scientific and extremely LIMITED research into consciousness as a function of brain will keep the Materialists and Physicalists chasing their collective tails for the next thousand years. Consciousness is the only thing in existence.
Yes, the Primacy and Importance of Consciousness is mostly ignored by Science. I think it is due to the fact that Science has no clue where to start studying Consciousness.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:40 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:00 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 pm
Your experience of Redness may very well be different from mine. But it will certainly be something close.
What is your metric for "similarity" and "difference"?
What is your referent/paragon for "redness experience" ?
How "very different" is "close"?
The commonality of Experience is an assumption, and we are talking about properly functioning Visual Systems. Since Consciousness is still in the realm of Philosophy (because Science has no clue) we must make assumptions if we can even start to understand. If the assumption is not correct then that will eventually fall out from the study.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:00 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 pm
For example I don't think you are Smelling Bleach when you See Red.
Non-sensical claim. My experience of "red" could be your experience of smelling bleach.

Your experience of red today, may be your smell of bleach tomorrow. That is exactly the point of synesthesia.
All these things could be true but you have to start somewhere.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:00 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 pm
If you are not color blind you are probably having quite the same experience as I do.
This is a baseless claim. Science already tells us that trichromats, tetrachromats and pentachromats experience it differently.

How differently? 7?
Trichromats, tetrachromats, and pentachromats have a basis of 3, 4, and 5 base Colors to work with. I think it is a sensible expectation that they probably all can Experience the basic Redness Experience. The tetrachromats and pentachromats can See more Colors than the Trichromats. That's another issue.


Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:00 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:53 pm
For purposes of studying Conscious perception we assume we are having similar Experiences.
That's unscientific. The point of science is to discover what there is. Not to assume its existence.
It's very Scientific to postulate an assumption and then, after the test of time, see if the assumption was correct.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:19 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:40 pm
Trichromats, tetrachromats, and pentachromats have a basis of 3, 4, and 5 base Colors to work with. I think it is a sensible expectation that they probably all can Experience the basic Redness Experience. The tetrachromats and pentachromats can See more Colors than the Trichromats. That's another issue.
No. It's not "another issue". It's the elephant in the room.

Because this is the question you are unable to answer: Which one of these three different colors is THE "basic redness experience"?

This one?

███████████████████████████████████████

Or this one?

███████████████████████████████████████

Or this one?

███████████████████████████████████████

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7073
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:46 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:21 pm
Yes we could study the Conscious Self itself but it is even more elusive than the Experience. Ironic since that is what we are. The understanding of Redness will no doubt involve some sort of Conscious Self.
Steve, thanks for your response.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that Consciousness is the only No Thing in existence?

.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:59 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:19 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:40 pm
Trichromats, tetrachromats, and pentachromats have a basis of 3, 4, and 5 base Colors to work with. I think it is a sensible expectation that they probably all can Experience the basic Redness Experience. The tetrachromats and pentachromats can See more Colors than the Trichromats. That's another issue.
No. It's not "another issue". It's the elephant in the room.

Because this is the question you are unable to answer: Which one of these three different colors is THE "basic redness experience"?

This one?

███████████████████████████████████████

Or this one?

███████████████████████████████████████

Or this one?

███████████████████████████████████████
From my point of view they all have the basic Redness property. There will be a band of wavelengths that have the basic Redness property. In this case you are mixing other Colors in with the Red. I am assuming the FF is the Red so you are quibbling over minute inclusions of other Colors, 01 of Green and 01 of Blue, that are swamped out by the Redness. The Red is essentially 255 times the magnitude of the other colors. The fact that all three have the same Redness is a no Brainer and it is understandable that our Visual Systems will depict it that way. The Elephant in the room, regardless of what the Experience that you might be having is: How do you Experience it. Even if you were having a Blue Experience when you look at the 3 bands it is immaterial to the question as to: How is it that you are having that Blue Experience?

SteveKlinko
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:04 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:46 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:21 pm
Yes we could study the Conscious Self itself but it is even more elusive than the Experience. Ironic since that is what we are. The understanding of Redness will no doubt involve some sort of Conscious Self.
Steve, thanks for your response.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that Consciousness is the only No Thing in existence?

.
By No Thing I assume you mean Consciousness is not a Physical Thing in the Physical World of Things. Consciousness is Not Matter, and Not Energy, and Not Space. I think that Consciousness might very well be a No Thing but I don't know if it is the only No Thing.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7073
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:25 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:04 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:46 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:21 pm
Yes we could study the Conscious Self itself but it is even more elusive than the Experience. Ironic since that is what we are. The understanding of Redness will no doubt involve some sort of Conscious Self.
Steve, thanks for your response.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that Consciousness is the only No Thing in existence?

.
By No Thing I assume you mean Consciousness is not a Physical Thing in the Physical World of Things. Consciousness is Not Matter, and Not Energy, and Not Space. I think that Consciousness might very well be a No Thing but I don't know if it is the only No Thing.
Consciousness must be the ONLY thing aka No thing in existence because a 'thing' is not conscious of itself. But No-thing aka Consciousness is Conscious of itself.

No 'thing' has ever been seen, just as the SEER CONSCIOUSNESS has never been seen. Why, because it's ONE THING known to itself only aka NO THING.

Right?

.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:30 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:25 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:04 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:46 pm


Steve, thanks for your response.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that Consciousness is the only No Thing in existence?

.
By No Thing I assume you mean Consciousness is not a Physical Thing in the Physical World of Things. Consciousness is Not Matter, and Not Energy, and Not Space. I think that Consciousness might very well be a No Thing but I don't know if it is the only No Thing.
Consciousness must be the ONLY thing aka No thing in existence because a 'thing' is not conscious of itself. But No-thing aka Consciousness is Conscious of itself.

No 'thing' has ever been seen, just as the SEER CONSCIOUSNESS has never been seen. Why, because it's ONE THING known to itself only aka NO THING.

Right?

.
Thinking ...

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:38 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:59 pm
There will be a band of wavelengths that have the basic Redness property.
Isn't that the fundamental problem? Where does the band start? Where does it end?

Without looking at the source code can you tell me which of these DOES NOT have the "redness" property you speak of?

███████████████████████████████████████

How about this?

███████████████████████████████████████

And this?

███████████████████████████████████████

what about this?

███████████████████████████████████████

This?

███████████████████████████████████████

And finally this?

███████████████████████████████████████

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7073
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:40 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:04 pm
By No Thing I assume you mean Consciousness is not a Physical Thing in the Physical World of Things. Consciousness is Not Matter, and Not Energy, and Not Space. I think that Consciousness might very well be a No Thing but I don't know if it is the only No Thing.
Of course it's the only No Thing.

What other No thing is known?


Where does my consciousness end and yours begin? ..you exist only because I exist, I exist only because you exist. You are my mirror and I am your mirror. Consciousness is a two way mirror reflecting the unknown no thing into a thing known.


“I am not what I think I am. I am not what you think I am. I am what I think you think I am.”

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:00 am

Steve -

In reply to your last question ... NO. Or maybe you meant something different? I don’t know because you don’t, and haven’t, made yourself explicit enough. I’m only willing to guess so much.

If you don’t see that the concepts of ‘redness’ and ‘number/ness’ are ‘objects’ - in Husserlian terms - you don’t understand the point of the phenomenological investigation.

To add, you keep talking about ‘wavelengths’ yet these are ‘physical objects’ so you’re setting out the stall of ‘redness’ as both abstract and physical giving yourself an easy way to argue against any attempt to be nailed down. Either ‘redness’ is the wavelength or it isn’t. If it isn’t then does that mean red light isn’t red? See the issue here?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest