A Journey Into Mind, Seeing, And Light

[RCSaunders]

Reality is only represented by your mind. The cow is represented in your mind by an image.

What cow? If there is no real cow, what is it the image is representing?

Either there is a cow (else there is nothing to have an image of) or there is no cow (and the brain just makes it up out of whole cloth). Which is it?

[jayjacobus]

"Scientific fact?" Which science would that be? Astrology? Alchemy? Scientism? Platonic realism? Psychobabble? What?

Since it's a, "science," you are of course prepared to present, or at least refer to, the examinable evidence for it, aren't you.

You can not determine smells based on molecules because molecules have no smell but the brain represents molecules as having smells. So, if your nose senses a lemon molecule, you would not know what that was unless your brain converted it into a smell. The smell is the brains representation of the lemon.

The same is true of images, sounds, tactile senses and tastes. None exist in the world but all have a representation created by the brain.

Science has determined that none of the inputs have an understandable meaning without the brain.

And you are prepared to explain how the, "brain," knows beforehand exactly how all those, "inputs," should be organized to turned them into intelligeable experiences that accurately represent what is perceived. I'll consider your explanation when you have done that.

In the meantime, since it is being assumed the colors I see are just made-up by the brain (though no one is interested in explaining how that is accomplished), and all I see is nothing more than patches and configurations of color, when I look in a mirror and see my head, all I'm seeing a bunch of colors organized in a certain way I call my head. But since that is all it is, and not actually something, "out there," and the brain that is supposed to be creating all that I see is supposed to be inside that non-existent head, how .... If you can think, you can see the problem. Either the head I see is a real thing exactly as it looks, or there is no head, no brain, and nothing to make up what is supposedly seen.

Mental representation in the brain remains an unresolved issue. How the brain transforms light waves into colors is unknown. Neuroscientists have tracked the paths of the various senses but when they get to the end, they are stumped. Without being able to see how that happens they have a dilemma. Is it the brain that creates colors or is it the mind?

[RCSaunders]

You can not determine smells based on molecules because molecules have no smell but the brain represents molecules as having smells. So, if your nose senses a lemon molecule, you would not know what that was unless your brain converted it into a smell. The smell is the brains representation of the lemon.

The same is true of images, sounds, tactile senses and tastes. None exist in the world but all have a representation created by the brain.

Science has determined that none of the inputs have an understandable meaning without the brain.

And you are prepared to explain how the, "brain," knows beforehand exactly how all those, "inputs," should be organized to turned them into intelligeable experiences that accurately represent what is perceived. I'll consider your explanation when you have done that.

In the meantime, since it is being assumed the colors I see are just made-up by the brain (though no one is interested in explaining how that is accomplished), and all I see is nothing more than patches and configurations of color, when I look in a mirror and see my head, all I'm seeing a bunch of colors organized in a certain way I call my head. But since that is all it is, and not actually something, "out there," and the brain that is supposed to be creating all that I see is supposed to be inside that non-existent head, how .... If you can think, you can see the problem. Either the head I see is a real thing exactly as it looks, or there is no head, no brain, and nothing to make up what is supposedly seen.

Mental representation in the brain remains an unresolved issue. How the brain transforms light waves into colors is unknown. Neuroscientists have tracked the paths of the various senses but when they get to the end, they are stumped. Without being able to see how that happens they have a dilemma. Is it the brain that creates colors or is it the mind?

Last time I checked, "unresolved issue," was just a euphemism for, "we haven't the slightest idea," and I think it is foolish to base one's beliefs on what one has no idea about and must just assume without any evidence except wishful thinking,

Neuroscience is only able to describe what the physical neurological system does (and actually has done well at that so far, but has a long way to go). Neuroscience is a physical science, like all sciences, and is only able to study the physical. Consciousness is an attribute of physical entities called organisms, but is not a physical attribute. No physical science can study what cannot be directly perceived or discovered based on what can be directly perceived (using instruments, for example). Consciousness is perception and the physical is what consciousness perceives, but no one can perceive consciousness itself--not their own or anyone else's. (We know we are conscious, because we are, just as we know we see, because we do, but we cannot be conscious of (see, hear, smell, taste, or feel) or consciousness just as we cannot "see our seeing," or, "anyone else's seeing." Science cannot study what cannot be seen or detected directly or indirectly by perception.)

The whole, "problem," is the assumption that conscious must have a physical explanation, but there is absolutely no logical or evidential reason for that assumption beyond the desire of some philosophers for it to be so (and the irrational belief that just because all attributes of physical entities are not physical attributes it automatically implies some kind of dualism. It doesn't.) The neurological system is obviously the aspect of an organism that makes possible for it to perceive its environment and own internal states, but it does not, "produce," that conscious perception, it only makes it available to perception.

[jayjacobus]

And you are prepared to explain how the, "brain," knows beforehand exactly how all those, "inputs," should be organized to turned them into intelligeable experiences that accurately represent what is perceived. I'll consider your explanation when you have done that.

In the meantime, since it is being assumed the colors I see are just made-up by the brain (though no one is interested in explaining how that is accomplished), and all I see is nothing more than patches and configurations of color, when I look in a mirror and see my head, all I'm seeing a bunch of colors organized in a certain way I call my head. But since that is all it is, and not actually something, "out there," and the brain that is supposed to be creating all that I see is supposed to be inside that non-existent head, how .... If you can think, you can see the problem. Either the head I see is a real thing exactly as it looks, or there is no head, no brain, and nothing to make up what is supposedly seen.

Mental representation in the brain remains an unresolved issue. How the brain transforms light waves into colors is unknown. Neuroscientists have tracked the paths of the various senses but when they get to the end, they are stumped. Without being able to see how that happens they have a dilemma. Is it the brain that creates colors or is it the mind?

Last time I checked, "unresolved issue," was just a euphemism for, "we haven't the slightest idea," and I think it is foolish to base one's beliefs on what one has no idea about and must just assume without any evidence except wishful thinking,

Neuroscience is only able to describe what the physical neurological system does (and actually has done well at that so far, but has a long way to go). Neuroscience is a physical science, like all sciences, and is only able to study the physical. Consciousness is an attribute of physical entities called organisms, but is not a physical attribute. No physical science can study what cannot be directly perceived or discovered based on what can be directly perceived (using instruments, for example). Consciousness is perception and the physical is what consciousness perceives, but no one can perceive consciousness itself--not their own or anyone else's. (We know we are conscious, because we are, just as we know we see, because we do, but we cannot be conscious of (see, hear, smell, taste, or feel) or consciousness just as we cannot "see our seeing," or, "anyone else's seeing." Science cannot study what cannot be seen or detected directly or indirectly by perception.)

The whole, "problem," is the assumption that conscious must have a physical explanation, but there is absolutely no logical or evidential reason for that assumption beyond the desire of some philosophers for it to be so (and the irrational belief that just because all attributes of physical entities are not physical attributes it automatically implies some kind of dualism. It doesn't.) The neurological system is obviously the aspect of an organism that makes possible for it to perceive its environment and own internal states, but it does not, "produce," that conscious perception, it only makes it available to perception.

Do assumptions come from previous assumptions or are there truths from which assumptions follow?

[RCSaunders]

Mental representation in the brain remains an unresolved issue. How the brain transforms light waves into colors is unknown. Neuroscientists have tracked the paths of the various senses but when they get to the end, they are stumped. Without being able to see how that happens they have a dilemma. Is it the brain that creates colors or is it the mind?

Last time I checked, "unresolved issue," was just a euphemism for, "we haven't the slightest idea," and I think it is foolish to base one's beliefs on what one has no idea about and must just assume without any evidence except wishful thinking,

Neuroscience is only able to describe what the physical neurological system does (and actually has done well at that so far, but has a long way to go). Neuroscience is a physical science, like all sciences, and is only able to study the physical. Consciousness is an attribute of physical entities called organisms, but is not a physical attribute. No physical science can study what cannot be directly perceived or discovered based on what can be directly perceived (using instruments, for example). Consciousness is perception and the physical is what consciousness perceives, but no one can perceive consciousness itself--not their own or anyone else's. (We know we are conscious, because we are, just as we know we see, because we do, but we cannot be conscious of (see, hear, smell, taste, or feel) or consciousness just as we cannot "see our seeing," or, "anyone else's seeing." Science cannot study what cannot be seen or detected directly or indirectly by perception.)

The whole, "problem," is the assumption that conscious must have a physical explanation, but there is absolutely no logical or evidential reason for that assumption beyond the desire of some philosophers for it to be so (and the irrational belief that just because all attributes of physical entities are not physical attributes it automatically implies some kind of dualism. It doesn't.) The neurological system is obviously the aspect of an organism that makes possible for it to perceive its environment and own internal states, but it does not, "produce," that conscious perception, it only makes it available to perception.

Do assumptions come from previous assumptions or are there truths from which assumptions follow?

Unwarranted assumptions are always wrong, especially when made in response to what one desires or would like there to be. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, however. It is usually safe to assume a thing if there is enough evidence for it and no disastrous consequence will result if the assumption turns out to be mistaken. Not sure an assumption can be based on an assumption unless you're referring to a premise for some logical argument, in which case I would say no assumed premise is correct.

If you're talking about conjecture, I see no reason why anything that does not contradict what is already known cannot be hypothetically assumed.

Not sure I've answered your question here because I'm not certain I understand it.