Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

[I Like Sushu]

Steve -

What us your point? Sure, we don’t need eyes to ‘see’ as we can also ‘see’ with our hands, ears etc.,. Why should I concern myself with “redness”?

From the phenomenological perspective I would say I experience “redness” due to the hue, tone, brilliance etc., of said “redness”. I cannot imagine a “redness” absent of tone or brilliance. So I’ve just ‘shown’ you what happens when I focus on redness.

Is there anything else you’d like to add or a question you’d like to pose?

You are talking about the different qualities of Redness. Each quality hue, tone, Brilliant or Dull is just another Color. The question remains: regardless of the hue, tone or brilliance: How do you See (Experience) that Color. Do you not recognize that The Redness is a thing in itself? Do you believe that Redness does not even exist?

There is the problem. When you use the suffix ‘-ness’ this declares something as a quality of something else.

If all you’re really asking is “what is experience?” I don’t really know! If you have an inkling spill the beans. The best I could offer would be some reference to what we know of brain function, but that doesn’t - at the core of human life - ‘explain’ what experience is. So I would venture the question is either currently redundant, due to how it is being framed or, and this is my bet, we simply haven’t formed useful enough concepts to deal with questions regarding consciousness and what consciousness means.

[SteveKlinko]

How many Colors there are is a good question but it is not the point of this thread. The point of this tread is: How do we See the Colors that we can See?

What kind of answer are you looking for and how much fidelity do you expect?

Are you satisfied with the primitive models of mind-body dualism, or are you looking for a neuroscientific explanation which understand the human brain as a complex system.
Do you care about things like 'retinas', 'cones and rods', 'optical nerves', 'lateral geniculate nucleus', 'visual cortices' or.... what?

If any one of those components in the system fail - you would not 'see' color. And if those systems fail in a particular way you could even end up tasting color.

I'm looking for the answer of How we See. Doesn't matter what the answer is. Saying it is in the Neurons is not an answer it's just a direction for the Study. Saying that it is Dualistic is not an answer but it frees the Study to go in directions not allowed if you stick with the thought that it has to be all in the Neurons.

[Skepdick]

I'm looking for the answer of How we See. Doesn't matter what the answer is.

OK. Then the answer is 42. Or Pink Unicorns. If it doesn't matter - either one should suffice.

Saying it is in the Neurons is not an answer it's just a direction for the Study. Saying that it is Dualistic is not an answer but it frees the Study to go in directions not allowed if you stick with the thought that it has to be all in the Neurons.

Errrrr. OK. You need to state your expectations clearly and unequivocally here.
What is an 'answer' to you? What degree of uncertainty and imprecision are you willing to tolerate in an answer?

First you say 'it doesn't matter', but then you are clearly rejecting the neuroscientific view on the matter. What is to say that even if the correct answer was offered you at this very moment that you aren't just going to shit all over it in rude dismissal?

Are the current answers unsatisfactory to you? Why?

[SteveKlinko]

Steve -

What us your point? Sure, we don’t need eyes to ‘see’ as we can also ‘see’ with our hands, ears etc.,. Why should I concern myself with “redness”?

From the phenomenological perspective I would say I experience “redness” due to the hue, tone, brilliance etc., of said “redness”. I cannot imagine a “redness” absent of tone or brilliance. So I’ve just ‘shown’ you what happens when I focus on redness.

Is there anything else you’d like to add or a question you’d like to pose?

You are talking about the different qualities of Redness. Each quality hue, tone, Brilliant or Dull is just another Color. The question remains: regardless of the hue, tone or brilliance: How do you See (Experience) that Color. Do you not recognize that The Redness is a thing in itself? Do you believe that Redness does not even exist?

There is the problem. When you use the suffix ‘-ness’ this declares something as a quality of something else.

If all you’re really asking is “what is experience?” I don’t really know! If you have an inkling spill the beans. The best I could offer would be some reference to what we know of brain function, but that doesn’t - at the core of human life - ‘explain’ what experience is. So I would venture the question is either currently redundant, due to how it is being framed or, and this is my bet, we simply haven’t formed useful enough concepts to deal with questions regarding consciousness and what consciousness means.

Exactly. I say things like Redness instead of just Red to direct thinking away from the Electromagnetic Phenomenon and more toward the Conscious Phenomenon. The Redness of Red might seem redundant but I am trying to make people think outside the box. There is an element of truth in saying it that way that I cannot express in any other way. Why would I say Redness of Red? What is it that I am trying to say? (Rhetorical)

[SteveKlinko]

I'm looking for the answer of How we See. Doesn't matter what the answer is.

OK. Then the answer is 42. Or Pink Unicorns. If it doesn't matter - either one should suffice.

Saying it is in the Neurons is not an answer it's just a direction for the Study. Saying that it is Dualistic is not an answer but it frees the Study to go in directions not allowed if you stick with the thought that it has to be all in the Neurons.

Errrrr. OK. You need to state your expectations clearly and unequivocally here.
What is an 'answer' to you? What degree of uncertainty and imprecision are you willing to tolerate in an answer?

First you say 'it doesn't matter', but then you are clearly rejecting the neuroscientific view on the matter. What is to say that even if the correct answer was offered you at this very moment that you aren't just going to shit all over it in rude dismissal?

Are the current answers unsatisfactory to you? Why?

The current Scientific answers are unsatisfactory. Do you think Science has the answer? I would be completely satisfied if Science did actually have the answer.

[Skepdick]

Exactly. I say things like Redness to direct thinking toward the Conscious Phenomenon.

But you are also directing thinking away from the neuroscientific fact that when you damage any number of the critical modules between the retina and the visual cortex the 'conscious phenomenon of redness' stops and the conscious phenomenon of 'Fuck I am blind" starts.

There is clearly a dependency between all those physical objects and the experience of colour.

[Skepdick]

The current Scientific answers are unsatisfactory.

Yes. I guessed that you are unsatisfied. I am asking WHY.

Do you think Science has the answer?

THE answer? No. Science never has THE answer. Our knowledge of reality is incomplete. It's just a happenstance of the human condition.

Science has a partial answers to various instrumental goals.

I would be completely satisfied if Science did actually have the answer.

No, I don't think you would be satisfied, because you seem to be avoiding the crucial question of importance. The question of your own introspective ability.

My question to you is rather concise: If science was to produce a theory tomorrow explaining how consciousness works, how would YOU determine that it's valid/correct? How you tell the difference between THE answer and not-THE-answer?

You seem to have rather unrealistic expectations of the kinds of knowledge science produces.

[SteveKlinko]

Exactly. I say things like Redness to direct thinking toward the Conscious Phenomenon.

But you are also directing thinking away from the neuroscientific fact that when you damage any number of the critical modules between the retina and the visual cortex the 'conscious phenomenon of redness' stops and the conscious phenomenon of 'Fuck I am blind" starts.

There is clearly a dependency between all those physical objects and the experience of colour.

I'm not saying there is no connection to the Neural Activity. I have always said: Neural Activity happens then a Conscious Experience happens. Bringing up degenerate cases of Neural damage is only a Diversion from the question: With a perfectly functioning Visual System ... How do we See what we See? If you can show me How something like the Redness of Red can be in the Neurons then tell me How that could happen?

[SteveKlinko]

The current Scientific answers are unsatisfactory.

Yes. I guessed that you are unsatisfied. I am asking WHY.

Do you think Science has the answer?

THE answer? No. Science never has THE answer. Our knowledge of reality is incomplete. It's just a happenstance of the human condition.

Science has a partial answers to various instrumental goals.

I would be completely satisfied if Science did actually have the answer.

No, I don't think you would be satisfied, because you seem to be avoiding the crucial question of importance. The question of your own introspective ability.

My question to you is rather concise: If science was to produce a theory tomorrow explaining how consciousness works, how would YOU determine that it's valid/correct? How you tell the difference between THE answer and not-THE-answer?

You seem to have rather unrealistic expectations of the kinds of knowledge science produces.

If Science came up with the answer to Consciousness tomorrow it would solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness and there would be World Wide acclaim for the Scientists that discovered it. That would do it for me.

[surreptitious57]

is it not better to say that pre dated knowledge without a knower can only ever exist in a knower that is now ?
otherwise what the heck knows there was no knower present in the pre dated knowledge known now ... ?

Does it make sense to announce knowledge that was absent of a knower of that knowledge existing which can only be known now ... ?
Is it not better to say that the knower of any knowledge is alway NOW ... and that knowledge of any thing can only ever be known now ... ?

The knowledge can obviously only be known by a knower but the thing that the knowledge pertains to requires no knower at all
Phenomena are mind independent so they do not require minds in order to exist and unlike minds have always existed anyway

[Skepdick]

How do we See what we See? If you can show me How something like the Redness of Red can be in the Neurons then tell me How that could happen?

Have you ever built a Computer Vision algorithm which recognizes shapes and colors as captured by a camera? That's how it happens.

But I guess, that answer is not sufficient for you either.

There's circular problem here. Do you not see it?
You want science to account for the experience of 'redness', but you are unable to account for the experience of 'reading a satisfactory answer'.

That's why you are avoiding the question: What do you expect an answer to tell you?

HOW it works? In what language and with what foundational concepts would you like the answer to be spoon-fed to you?
You clearly have some expectation, that when you read THE answer then something will happen in your mind, some red flag will pop up to allow you to recognize the answer as being 'valid'.

What might that red flag be exactly?

[Skepdick]

If Science came up with the answer to Consciousness tomorrow it would solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness and there would be World Wide acclaim for the Scientists that discovered it. That would do it for me.

More circular reasoning.

The answer to the hard problem of consciousness is 42. It's solved.

Now what? Are you satisfied or was that not good enough?

[surreptitious57]

Cant have a concept without a conceiver they have to exist in the exact same instantaneous moment NOW

Therefore ( knower / knowing / known ) are ultimately ONE entire whole totality ... phenomena appearing NOW and only NOW

The one entire totality exists across ALL of time even if it is only the NOW that can be experienced but the NOW is not absolute
And so within this NOW that is not absolute but is eternally changing phenomena can and do exist independently of any minds
Also phenomena are not concepts because if they were then they most definitely could not exist independently of any minds

[Dontaskme]

is it not better to say that pre dated knowledge without a knower can only ever exist in a knower that is now ?
otherwise what the heck knows there was no knower present in the pre dated knowledge known now ... ?

Does it make sense to announce knowledge that was absent of a knower of that knowledge existing which can only be known now ... ?
Is it not better to say that the knower of any knowledge is alway NOW ... and that knowledge of any thing can only ever be known now ... ?

The knowledge can obviously only be known by a knower but the thing that the knowledge pertains to requires no knower at all
Phenomena are mind independent so they do not require minds in order to exist and unlike minds have always existed anyway

Ok thanks for clarifying..

So does phenomena that is mind independent requiring no mind include the human being thing?

.

[surreptitious57]

The eternal NOW is constantly moving to the future while always experiencing the present and constantly
moving from the past and is doing all of these at exactly the same time and in absolute perfect harmony

An eternal PRESENT with no FUTURE or PAST would in reality be entirely timeless with nothing ever happening at all
Also the mind cannot perceive of the smallest possible moment of NOW because it is beyond human comprehension

In mathematical terms this would be the equivalent of asking what is the next number after 0 [ ANY number that is ]
Between ALL numbers there exists an infinity of even more numbers so it is fundamentally an unanswerable question