Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

[I Like Sushu]

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?

Red Electromagnetic Light has many Properties and one of them is Wavelength. However, Red Electromagnetic Light has no Property of Redness. The Redness is a creation of the Brain/Mind mechanism. The Brain/Mind mechanism presents the Redness Experience to us as a Surrogate for the Red Electromagnetic Light so that we can Detect the Red Electromagnetic Light.

In that case wavelength has no wavelengthness, electromagetism has no electroness nor any magneticness. Funny thing is I have room in my head for the concepts of ‘magnetism’ and ‘wavelength’ only I don’t insist my appreciation of these terms are in any way due to a necessary dualism of brain/mind.

Your issue is epistemic at best, but the heart of the issue seems to be the linguistic knots you’ve tied yourself into.

[Ramu]

We don't know enough about the Universe yet to be able to confidently say there are no other Not Things.

We don’t know anything about the “we” that claims to be the knower, there is only knowledge aka conceptual things known by the unknown knower.

.

By We I meant Science. And correct, Science does not know what We are. But that's what I am trying to figure out through my study of Conscious Experience.

There is no such thing as a conscious experience as you are Consciousness Itself.

[RCSaunders]

There is no such thing as a conscious experience ...

Just so you'll understand, when other people use the phrase, "conscious experience," they mean the experience of seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, and interoception by which one experiences the internal states of the body.

To say, "there is no such thing as a conscious experience," means there is no seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, or interoception. If that is what you mean, you are free to believe it, so long as you understand it means you are blind, deaf, have no sense of feeling, cannot smell or taste anything, and have no internal feelings or emotions.

Believe that of yourself if you like, but it's a bit presumptuous to believe it of others since there is no possible way for you to know what anyone else's conscious experience is.

[Dontaskme]

There is no such thing as a conscious experience ...

Just so you'll understand, when other people use the phrase, "conscious experience,"

You cannot know you are conscious until another one informs you you exist in the form of your name.

Naming is the beginning of knowledge where you become conscious of your existence, but only of the name, you experience the name, but you can never experience the knower of the name which is consciousness, you cannot know consciousness because you are conciousness aware of the conception of itself as and through the concept known aka the named thing.

The named thing doesn't experience, the named thing is the experience Not a thing consciousness is experiencing...so that which is experienced aka a named thing cannot experience.

Consciousness is not a named thing, it is the not-knowing knower of the named thing, aka the concept in this conception of every named thing as known to the only knowing there is which is consciousness.



Consciousness can be regarded as mind with objects, whereas awareness refers to mind without objects.

Awareness is the unchanging substratum that totally pervades the ever-changing activity of mind/consciousness already couched within awareness.

.

[SteveKlinko]

A good answer would satisfy me as long as it is in some sensible Framework. I fully expect that the eventual understanding of Redness will involve some new ways of thinking about things. And this is because Redness is in a whole new Category of Phenomena (Conscious Phenomena) that are not part of any Scientific Category of Phenomena that is known today.

Before science explains 'redness' to you, I imagine it will first have to explain the conscious phenomenon of 'expectation'?

Since that's how prediction works...

Rhetorical question? I think Redness first and Expectation after that. I think Redness is a less ambiguous Conscious thing to target than Expectation.

[SteveKlinko]

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?

Red Electromagnetic Light has many Properties and one of them is Wavelength. However, Red Electromagnetic Light has no Property of Redness. The Redness is a creation of the Brain/Mind mechanism. The Brain/Mind mechanism presents the Redness Experience to us as a Surrogate for the Red Electromagnetic Light so that we can Detect the Red Electromagnetic Light.

In that case wavelength has no wavelengthness, electromagetism has no electroness nor any magneticness. Funny thing is I have room in my head for the concepts of ‘magnetism’ and ‘wavelength’ only I don’t insist my appreciation of these terms are in any way due to a necessary dualism of brain/mind.

Your issue is epistemic at best, but the heart of the issue seems to be the linguistic knots you’ve tied yourself into.

The error in what you have just said is that you are trying to take the language of Conscious Phenomenon and apply it to Physical Phenomenon. The Wavelength of a particular pure frequency of Electromagnetic Energy is a definite number, say 670 for Red Light. It does not make sense to talk about Wavelengthness.

[SteveKlinko]

We don’t know anything about the “we” that claims to be the knower, there is only knowledge aka conceptual things known by the unknown knower.

.

By We I meant Science. And correct, Science does not know what We are. But that's what I am trying to figure out through my study of Conscious Experience.

There is no such thing as a conscious experience as you are Consciousness Itself.

This could be true but you have a huge Explanatory Gap to fill.

[Skepdick]

I think Redness is a less ambiguous

But it's not 'least ambiguous'. I literally just demonstrated to you that you use 'redness' to mean AT LEAST 255 different things!

Ambiguity and equivocation are two sides of the same coin.

Quite literally - you are facing a problem of precision. A bias-variance trade-off.

[SteveKlinko]

I think Redness is a less ambiguous

But it's not 'least ambiguous'. I literally just demonstrated to you that you use 'redness' to mean AT LEAST 255 different things!

Ambiguity and equivocation are two sides of the same coin.

Quite literally - you are facing a problem of precision. A bias-variance trade-off.

You are worrying about an aspect of this that is irrelevant. Who cares how many Colors there are? The issue here is: How do you See a Color, any Color, in the first place. If You look at a source of 670nm (Red) Wavelength Light you will See something. How do you See that Something? If You look at a source of 540nm (Green) Wavelength Light you will again See something. This will be a different something than before, but How do you See this something? How it is that you See these two different somethings will probably have a common Explanation. You seem to think that each conceivable Color will need a whole different Explanation. Maybe true but I think that when we understand one Color we will understand them all. Ill go so far as to say that when we understand a Color then we will also understand a Sound, a Taste, a Smell, and a Touch. We will probably also as a byproduct understand the Conscious Self.

[Skepdick]

We will probably also as a byproduct understand the Conscious Self.

Here is the source of your circular reasoning. Do you understand what 'understanding' means?

If you don't have a solid conception for understanding then how do you determine whether you understand anything?

Until you answer this foundational question, you are setting yourself up for never-ending philosophical sophistry.

[Sculptor]

I think Redness is a less ambiguous

But it's not 'least ambiguous'. I literally just demonstrated to you that you use 'redness' to mean AT LEAST 255 different things!

Ambiguity and equivocation are two sides of the same coin.

Quite literally - you are facing a problem of precision. A bias-variance trade-off.

You can talk about RGB numbers, or wavelengths of light till you are blue in the face, but the difference between red and green is not just quantitative it is QUALITATIVE.
We see different things across the spectrum that no amount of quantifying can explain or describe.

There is a good thought experiment about this concerning a scientist called Mary.

[Skepdick]

You can talk about RGB numbers, or wavelengths of light till you are blue in the face, but the difference between red and green is not just quantitative it is QUALITATIVE.
We see different things across the spectrum that no amount of quantifying can explain or describe.

There is a good thought experiment about this concerning a scientist called Mary.

I don't care about your philosophistry analysis.

It simply begs the question: What is the QUALITATIVE difference between red and green?

[SteveKlinko]

We will probably also as a byproduct understand the Conscious Self.

Here is the source of your circular reasoning. Do you understand what 'understanding' means?

If you don't have a solid conception for understanding then how do you determine whether you understand anything?

Until you answer this foundational question, you are setting yourself up for never-ending philosophical sophistry.

You think understanding is one thing that can be defined. I think thee are many ways to understand things. Each new Object of understanding can bring with it a whole new way of understanding. I suspect that understanding Conscious Perception will involve a new way of understanding that we wont know until it is discovered.

[Skepdick]

You think understanding is one thing that can be defined. I think thee are many ways to understand things. Each new Object of understanding can bring with it a whole new way of understanding. I suspect that understanding Conscious Perception will involve a new way of understanding that we wont know until it is discovered.

No. I am simply asking you the same question.

How do you understand?

Can you explain 'understanding' without referencing consciousness? Since that would be a circular explanation...

[SteveKlinko]

You think understanding is one thing that can be defined. I think thee are many ways to understand things. Each new Object of understanding can bring with it a whole new way of understanding. I suspect that understanding Conscious Perception will involve a new way of understanding that we wont know until it is discovered.

No. I am simply asking you the same question.

How do you understand?

Can you explain 'understanding' without referencing consciousness? Since that would be a circular explanation...

I don't understand how wanting to understand a particular thing is Circular. I reject the premise that I absolutely must define Understanding before I can Understand something. That's putting the cart before the horse. There is no One definition of Understanding. Maybe you are hung up on the internal Feeling of Understanding. The Feeling of Understanding is a different thing from the Understanding itself.