Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

[RCSaunders]

Stop thinking in terms of a Red this or a Red that. Think of the pure Experience of the Redness. It is a thing in itself disconnected from any object. That is what you need to do to understand the question. Redness is a pure Conscious Experience existing only in our Minds. What is it? How is it generated? How does the Mind Experience it?

Steve, this is a basic ontological mistake. Entities exist and they are whatever their attributes are. No attribute, behavior, or relationship exists independently of the entities they are the attributes or behavior of or relationships between. If there never were any red things, there would be no red.

If red does not exist as an attribute of that which is perceived, "externally," and only exists in the mind, why would the mind produce an experience of something that does not exist? How could the mind do it? ("Somehow," is not an explanation.) And why would the mind do it? (Unless the purpose of the mind was to deceive us.)

[surreptitious57]

The electromagnetic spectrum is a mind independent phenomenon not a mind dependent one so therefore
the colour something is depends on its frequency within the spectrum not what the mind imagines it to be

[RCSaunders]

... when you are Awake and looking at a scene of objects in the External World the Brian/Mind mechanism creates the Internal Conscious Light that lets you See the scene. The Internal Conscious Light scene is Correlated with the External Physical World scene. Because of this Correlation you understandably think you are Directly Seeing the objects in the scene. This Internal Conscious Light Visual scene that you See is how you Detect the External World. You don't See the External World like you think you do, but rather you are always Seeing your Internal Brain/Mind generated Conscious Light representation of it.

I know a lot of people believe this bad hyhpothesis of perception. All such views of perception assert there is some brain or neurological process that creates conscious perception from (here the theories get murky, 'nerve transmitted signals,' 'the so-called senses,' or some other unspecified thing). The problem with all such views is if that process cannot be identified and how it produces conscious perception explained there is no way to know if what it produces is valid or not. Furthermore, it does not explain conscious perception at all. "There is a process the produces conscious perception." How? No answer. How do you know. Just accept it. "Somehow," is not an explanation of anything.

Everyone tells me what I see, hear, feel, smell, and taste is not reality as it actually is. There are endless varieties of, "perceived reality is not really as it is perceived," hypotheses.

But I know the reality I directly perceive is exactly as I perceive it. It has never deceived me and no decision I have based on reality, exactly as I perceive it, has ever failed. All those arguments are to me exactly like the explanation of the women caught by her husband naked in bed with another man, "It's not what it looks like. Are you going to believe your own eyes before the word of your loving wife?"

I can understand the wife's wish to convince her husband that his perception of things was not what they seemed to be. What I cannot understand is the motive of all those philosophers, religious teachers, mystics and pseudo-scientists who want to convince everyone that what they see is not real and that some fiction they have made up is what is truly real. It is difficult not to believe their motives are just as duplicitous as the unfaithful wife's.

[Dontaskme]

The electromagnetic spectrum is a mind independent phenomenon not a mind dependent one so therefore
the colour something is depends on its frequency within the spectrum not what the mind imagines it to be

But how can the ES phenomena be independant of mind? ... for the above claimed conceptual knowledge to be known and spoken about requires a knower.


The mind is just another word for LIGHT..or CONSCIOUSNESS etc..

The entire field of Consciousness can be attributed to being like an infinite ocean, and it's waves are the inseparable property of the ocean itself.
The entire electromagnetic spectrum is the term used to describe the entire range of light that exists.
What if LIGHT was just another word for MIND or CONSCIOUSNESS?

So where does the independancy idea fit it? ..HOW DOES THAT WORK? ..you can't just say it without explaining what you mean by the ES is a mind independent phenomena...that's like saying the waves of the ocean are independant of the ocean...or the ocean is independant of the waves...how does that work?

Another term we could use to describe what we are trying to say... could go like this...is the wave of a ripple upon the surface of a pond separate from the pond? ..No, cause without the pond there can be no ripple, so any ripple is inversely related to the pond, not independant of it.

I know you have used this 'independant from mind' idea many times, and I still don't get what you mean by that idea. Can you explain in coherent detail what you mean by the ''knowledge of something'' is independant of the mind....thanks.

.

[Dontaskme]

But I know the reality I directly perceive is exactly as I perceive it.

No I ever directly perceives reality as it is. Reality as it is ..is without I

That which is perceived cannot itself perceive or be the perceiver as perceived..there is here only ''Perceiving'' ...in other words what ever is imagined by consciousness itself. Consciousness belongs to no one single I because it is every single I


A known perception is always after the fact, after the action has already taken place by no known I become known as I in the exact same instant NOW
These two attributes NOT-KNOWING / KNOWN...are inversely related.

We don't perceive reality as it actually presents itself in realtime, we only know it as a poor interpreted representation of it...after the fact.

There is no known witness present in actual realtime events or actions...the knowledge of such events become known on demand for them via memory already dead, gone and in the past...and that knowledge of the past is the only means by which the illusion of an entity being present NOW is possible. . aka the sense of self-awareness. Only on reflection can the I exist..but it's a dead I ..only the realtime present without an I lives. The dead I is a conceptual fictional overlay upon realtime I-less present already and always this immediate now eternal presence.

The memory aka the dead I is a false enity made purely of 'thought' and 'thoughts' can make up all kinds of assumptions and ideas about any thing, but 'thought' will never really capture directly the present moment as it really is or of what is actually happening...because prior to any thought arising, nothing is happening...and that means that all ''thoughts'' are nought but a fictional ovelay upon the reality as is really is, which is without 'thought'...aka totally and utterly mindless.

Mindlessness is the infinite mind in abeyance, aka Consciousness without an object. That in a nutshell is reality as it really is...any perception of reality is mental activity...which is just a bad translation...aka heresay...the play of Empty Consciousness acting and playing the role of an assumed character, but no assumed character is any more real than the character in last nights dream.

.



.

[SteveKlinko]

Yes, the answer to my question will probably involve some sort of Conscious Self concept because Redness is experienced by Something. The quest for the answer to Redness will drive the answer to what that Something is.

Steve...the colour Red is a conceptual experience consciousness is having. Known only to consciousness itself, there is no direct experience of a concept ..for the concept is already known to consciousness. Without the word Red...what is Red?
Red is not really there, it’s a conceptual known aka a contrasting shadow of Light. There is only light, every shadow has it’s source from light only.. all colour is the illusion of light. There is no colour separate from it’s source.
Source ..Light..Consciousness...are all just different names for the same thing...Consciousness or light is this immediate un-known knower of a concept but consciousness is not a something ...the something is the concept known...and that which is known cannot know anything.in that does the Red colour know it is Red?

The colour Red is known only to that which is unknowable....science will never be satisfied with that answer and is why the quest continues, because science does not want the quest to come to an end.

Red is a concept ..it is the colour of the colourless. The knowing of the unknown. An image of the imageless. Red’s only existence in reality is an illusory shadow of the light...it owes it’s existence to the Light only...there is only Light.

So the only question is how does light see and experience it’s own light?

The answer is as and through it’s own illusory projection of itself. How does it do that?

Imagine it.

I think Red is Red by any name or no name. I also think Red is more than a concept it is a Conscious Mind thing that needs an Explanation. Good question at the end.

[SteveKlinko]

You two may find aesthetics a more stable pursuit. The tail chasing exercise of articulating in words what cannot be expressed in words will end in solipsism and/or nihilism. Then again, it may lead to a closer scrutiny of logic?

At the moment the past few posts seem to be stuck in an epistemic bubble. What are you hoping to achieve here by constantly selecting, deselecting and reselecting different functions for certain worded concepts? After all “brain” and/or “mind” as ‘perceived’ so it is a nonsense to talk of the brain process light input when the very ‘brain’ you’re referring to is an item of perception.

Th ‘redness’ of ‘red’ is just more wordplay. Colour perception requires space as does form. Time perception requires change. You simply cannot imagine a colour ‘contained’ beyond space. No one is ever ‘conscious’ of the colour red. We are conscious of SOMETHING red.

Does any of this help or help or should I go elsewhere?

Stop thinking in terms of a Red this or a Red that. Think of the pure Experience of the Redness. It is a thing in itself disconnected from any object. That is what you need to do to understand the question. Redness is a pure Conscious Experience existing only in our Minds. What is it? How is it generated? How does the Mind Experience it?

There is no other way to think of “red”. There is no possible experience of “red” disconnected from some conceived ‘object’. I could just as easily tell you to stop focusing on ‘red’ and focus on the ‘object’.

What ou seem to be vaguely outlining here is the phenomenology view - one I’m accustomed to.

Yes you could focus on the Object itself or you could focus on the Redness of a Red Object. First of all, you never See the Object itself in the way you think you do. At best you are only Seeing the Electro Magnetic Energy (EME) reflected from the Object. So already you have a big disconnect from the actual Object. When the EME hits your Retina it is immediately converted into Neural Impulses. The EME is gone and there is only a vast Neural Processing stage that follows. It is well known that the Retina does not See because if the Optic Nerve is cut you are Blind. The EME can hit the Retina and the Retina can convert the EME to Nerve impulses but you are Blind because you do not actually See until further downstream in the process. Somewhere downstream the Redness is created. The Redness is created from Neural Activity. In fact all the Colors and therefore Light in general is all created from Neural Activity. If you rub your Eyes you can See Lights. You are stimulating Neural Activity by the rubbing action. This clearly shows that the Light that you have always Seen is some sort of internal Conscious Brain/Mind creation. This internal Brain/Mind Light or as I like to call it Conscious Light is the only Light you have ever Seen. You mistakenly think you are Seeing the external EME but you are only Seeing this Internal Conscious Light Surrogate for the EME. Another way of saying this is that you don't directly See anything. You can only Detect things using this Internal Conscious Light process.

[SteveKlinko]

Stop thinking in terms of a Red this or a Red that. Think of the pure Experience of the Redness.

Are you thinking of the "Redness" now:

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

How about now?

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

And now?

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

Did you experience a different "Rednesses" each time? You should have... because the above are all different colors.

FF0000, FF0100 and FF0001

We know there are millions of different Colors and variations within Colors. So I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[SteveKlinko]

Stop thinking in terms of a Red this or a Red that. Think of the pure Experience of the Redness. It is a thing in itself disconnected from any object. That is what you need to do to understand the question. Redness is a pure Conscious Experience existing only in our Minds. What is it? How is it generated? How does the Mind Experience it?

Steve, this is a basic ontological mistake. Entities exist and they are whatever their attributes are. No attribute, behavior, or relationship exists independently of the entities they are the attributes or behavior of or relationships between. If there never were any red things, there would be no red.

If red does not exist as an attribute of that which is perceived, "externally," and only exists in the mind, why would the mind produce an experience of something that does not exist? How could the mind do it? ("Somehow," is not an explanation.) And why would the mind do it? (Unless the purpose of the mind was to deceive us.)

I am going to copy my response to another post because it applies here too.

First of all, you never See the Object itself in the way you think you do. At best you are only Seeing the Electro Magnetic Energy (EME) reflected from the Object. So already you have a big disconnect from the actual Object. When the EME hits your Retina it is immediately converted into Neural Impulses. The EME is gone and there is only a vast Neural Processing stage that follows. It is well known that the Retina does not See because if the Optic Nerve is cut you are Blind. The EME can hit the Retina and the Retina can convert the EME to Nerve impulses but you are Blind because you do not actually See until further downstream in the process. Somewhere downstream the Redness is created. The Redness is created from Neural Activity. In fact all the Colors and therefore Light in general is all created from Neural Activity. If you rub your Eyes you can See Lights. You are stimulating Neural Activity by the rubbing action. This clearly shows that the Light that you have always Seen is some sort of internal Conscious Brain/Mind creation. This internal Brain/Mind Light or as I like to call it Conscious Light is the only Light you have ever Seen. You mistakenly think you are Seeing the external EME but you are only Seeing this Internal Conscious Light Surrogate for the EME. Another way of saying this is that you don't directly See anything. You can only Detect things using this Internal Conscious Light process.

The Brain/Mind is not trying to, as you say Deceive Us, but rather it is doing the thing that it can do to Detect the External World for us. You are so completely accustomed to Experiencing your Internal Surrogate Conscious Light that you think it is the Real External World. The Surrogate is Correlated with the External World so it serves its Detection purpose well.

[SteveKlinko]

The electromagnetic spectrum is a mind independent phenomenon not a mind dependent one so therefore
the colour something is depends on its frequency within the spectrum not what the mind imagines it to be

I have copied my reply to another post here because it applies.

When the Electro Magnetic Energy (EME) hits your Retina it is immediately converted into Neural Impulses. The EME is gone and there is only a vast Neural Processing stage that follows. It is well known that the Retina does not See because if the Optic Nerve is cut you are Blind. The EME can hit the Retina and the Retina can convert the EME to Nerve impulses but you are Blind because you do not actually See until further downstream in the process. Somewhere downstream the Redness is created. The Redness is created from Neural Activity. In fact all the Colors and therefore Light in general is all created from Neural Activity. If you rub your Eyes you can See Lights. You are stimulating Neural Activity by the rubbing action. This clearly shows that the Light that you have always Seen is some sort of internal Conscious Brain/Mind creation. This internal Brain/Mind Light or as I like to call it Conscious Light is the only Light you have ever Seen. You mistakenly think you are Seeing the external EME but you are only Seeing this Internal Conscious Light Surrogate for the EME. Another way of saying this is that you don't directly See anything. You can only Detect things using this Internal Conscious Light process

[SteveKlinko]

... when you are Awake and looking at a scene of objects in the External World the Brian/Mind mechanism creates the Internal Conscious Light that lets you See the scene. The Internal Conscious Light scene is Correlated with the External Physical World scene. Because of this Correlation you understandably think you are Directly Seeing the objects in the scene. This Internal Conscious Light Visual scene that you See is how you Detect the External World. You don't See the External World like you think you do, but rather you are always Seeing your Internal Brain/Mind generated Conscious Light representation of it.

I know a lot of people believe this bad hyhpothesis of perception. All such views of perception assert there is some brain or neurological process that creates conscious perception from (here the theories get murky, 'nerve transmitted signals,' 'the so-called senses,' or some other unspecified thing). The problem with all such views is if that process cannot be identified and how it produces conscious perception explained there is no way to know if what it produces is valid or not. Furthermore, it does not explain conscious perception at all. "There is a process the produces conscious perception." How? No answer. How do you know. Just accept it. "Somehow," is not an explanation of anything.

Everyone tells me what I see, hear, feel, smell, and taste is not reality as it actually is. There are endless varieties of, "perceived reality is not really as it is perceived," hypotheses.

But I know the reality I directly perceive is exactly as I perceive it. It has never deceived me and no decision I have based on reality, exactly as I perceive it, has ever failed. All those arguments are to me exactly like the explanation of the women caught by her husband naked in bed with another man, "It's not what it looks like. Are you going to believe your own eyes before the word of your loving wife?"

I can understand the wife's wish to convince her husband that his perception of things was not what they seemed to be. What I cannot understand is the motive of all those philosophers, religious teachers, mystics and pseudo-scientists who want to convince everyone that what they see is not real and that some fiction they have made up is what is truly real. It is difficult not to believe their motives are just as duplicitous as the unfaithful wife's.

Again, your Mind is not trying to Deceive you, it is simply Detecting the External World using mechanisms we don't understand yet. And no, you should not just Accept anything. Somehow, is of course not an Explanation. Unfortunately this is the stage we are at when comes to understanding Consciousness. This is the classic Hard Problem of Consciousness.

[Skepdick]

We know there are millions of different Colors and variations within Colors. So I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Millions?
Are you sure it's not billions?
Perhaps quadrillions?

We 'know' as many colours as we are able to quantize from the light spectrum between 380 to 740 nanometers.

I am not trying to say anything. I am pointing out that your claim begs a question.

The question: "How many different colors are there?" is rather similar to the mathematical question of "How many real numbers are between 380 and 740?"

Unless you can answer that question first, it's rather difficult to say how many colours there are...
There are as many colours as you can distinguish. How many CAN you distinguish?

[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?

[RCSaunders]

First of all, you never See the Object itself in the way you think you do.

Since I totally disagree with this premise I'll not comment on the rest.

If you believe you never, "See the Object itself in the way you think you do," there is no way you can know that what you are seeing is related to actual objects or not, you only think they are.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, the answer to my question will probably involve some sort of Conscious Self concept because Redness is experienced by Something. The quest for the answer to Redness will drive the answer to what that Something is.

Steve...the colour Red is a conceptual experience consciousness is having. Known only to consciousness itself, there is no direct experience of a concept ..for the concept is already known to consciousness. Without the word Red...what is Red?
Red is not really there, it’s a conceptual known aka a contrasting shadow of Light. There is only light, every shadow has it’s source from light only.. all colour is the illusion of light. There is no colour separate from it’s source.
Source ..Light..Consciousness...are all just different names for the same thing...Consciousness or light is this immediate un-known knower of a concept but consciousness is not a something ...the something is the concept known...and that which is known cannot know anything.in that does the Red colour know it is Red?

The colour Red is known only to that which is unknowable....science will never be satisfied with that answer and is why the quest continues, because science does not want the quest to come to an end.

Red is a concept ..it is the colour of the colourless. The knowing of the unknown. An image of the imageless. Red’s only existence in reality is an illusory shadow of the light...it owes it’s existence to the Light only...there is only Light.

So the only question is how does light see and experience it’s own light?

The answer is as and through it’s own illusory projection of itself. How does it do that?

Imagine it.

I think Red is Red by any name or no name. I also think Red is more than a concept it is a Conscious Mind thing that needs an Explanation. Good question at the end.

You can’t think about any thing without conceiving it...so of course Red is a concept....even the idea it’s a conscious mind thing is a concept conceived...

No thing conceives itself. If a thing conceived itself then what conceived the thing that conceived itself..there are no answers Steve..no explanation needed to describe nothingness.