Insane Denial Of Conscious Experience

[Dontaskme]

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

.

[Dontaskme]

If phenomena that is not conceptual and has always existed independent of mind....then what is this mind thingy that’s just popped up recently? What is it ?

What is it now, and why does it exist now but didn’t exist before but can exist now?

[Dontaskme]

Steve...that which is looking / seeing the colour Red...is colourless else red would not be known...colourless can’t see itself and yet the colour Red is seen...Red is known because of seeing.. it’s known via the act of seeing itself ...Red is inseparable from what is seeing it..which is colourless...do you see a problem with that?

Without the blank screen of consciousness no colour would show up ....colour is known only by contrast to the blank screen.


That’s the only answer there is to how Red is seen Steve...consciousness is the blank screen...so how does a blank screen see colour?...

Or is the colour seeing the blank screen..or is the blank screen seeing the colour?

Do you see the dilemma here in trying to find the answer to how colour is known or how it is known?

[surreptitious57]

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

Obviously not because human minds themselves are not mind independent phenomena and nor can they ever be
A mind may be perceived as phenomena by another mind but it is still mind independent regardless of perception

[Dontaskme]

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

Obviously not because human minds themselves are not mind independent phenomena and nor can they ever be
A mind may be perceived as phenomena by another mind but it is still mind independent regardless of perception

So are you saying that minds exist because human beings exist?

Are you saying that the mind is another word for human being?

[surreptitious57]

If phenomena that is not conceptual and has always existed independent of mind ... then what is this mind thingy thats popped up recently ?

What is it now and why does it exist now but didnt exist before but can exist now ?

Mind is simply another level of complexity that has evolved over time but is really nothing that special
It is just that the forever changing eternal NOW is capable of producing them at this point in existence
Everything is connected directly or indirectly to everything else and so now that includes minds as well

[surreptitious57]

So are you saying that minds exist because human beings exist ?

Are you saying that the mind is another word for human being ?

All human beings are minds by default but not all minds however are human beings
So human beings are therefore a subset of everything that can be classed as minds

[Dontaskme]

So are you saying that minds exist because human beings exist ?

Are you saying that the mind is another word for human being ?

All human beings are minds by default but not all minds however are human beings
So human beings are therefore a subset of everything that can be classed as minds

Thanks for clarifying.

Is the mind only possible because of brains then? .. is the brain responsible for the emergence of a human being's mind? like the mind is just a more than usual complexity within the mechanics of the brain. Is the mind just an appearance phenomena within non-conceptual reality that is only just recently become responsible for a human being to become self-aware and hold the capacity to think thoughts and create concepts and language etc etc..? ........and that before humans arrived on the scene there was no such thing as a mind? ...is that right?
Did minds just pop aware right out of the blue because brains exist?


Sorry for asking all these questions.

.

[Dontaskme]

If phenomena that is not conceptual and has always existed independent of mind ... then what is this mind thingy thats popped up recently ?

What is it now and why does it exist now but didnt exist before but can exist now ?

Mind is simply another level of complexity that has evolved over time but is really nothing that special
It is just that the forever changing eternal NOW is capable of producing them at this point in existence
Everything is connected directly or indirectly to everything else and so now that includes minds as well

I kind of grasp what you are saying here... it's very interesting the way you describe the mind and the conscious experience as being like a recent appearance due to evolution.
It's almost like you are saying the conscious experience, aka the sense of 'I exist' because I have a mind to know 'I exist'...and that the mind is just a temporal appearance that has only just evolved recently, it being unique to the human being or and maybe in some other creatures as well?
So would you say the mind is only just NOW the KNOWING aspect of existence that was previously existing but was previously not-knowing it was existing..that until the mind of the human being showed up?

Is that right?

.

[SteveKlinko]

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?

As a matter of fact I have spent years working on Computer Vision algorithms and that is definitely not how Conscious Visual perception happens. If you think computer algorithms Explain anything about Conscious Visual Perception then you are highly mistaken. You are confusing two different ways of Detecting Red. The way Computers detect Red is all about numbers. Computers have no Experience of Redness. We detect Red using the Experience of Redness. How do we See that Redness?

[SteveKlinko]

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?

So I guess that the end of any serious conversation with you about this issue.

[SteveKlinko]

Steve...that which is looking / seeing the colour Red...is colourless else red would not be known...colourless can’t see itself and yet the colour Red is seen...Red is known because of seeing.. it’s known via the act of seeing itself ...Red is inseparable from what is seeing it..which is colourless...do you see a problem with that?

Without the blank screen of consciousness no colour would show up ....colour is known only by contrast to the blank screen.


That’s the only answer there is to how Red is seen Steve...consciousness is the blank screen...so how does a blank screen see colour?...

Or is the colour seeing the blank screen..or is the blank screen seeing the colour?

Do you see the dilemma here in trying to find the answer to how colour is known or how it is known?

I have always assumed that the answer to my question about Red would involve some concept of a Conscious Self. That Conscious Self is the 800lb Gorilla in the room.

[Skepdick]

I have always assumed that the answer to my question about Red would involve some concept of a Conscious Self. That Conscious Self is the 800lb Gorilla in the room.

Which is precisely why I am pointing out that you are stuck in a mode of circular reasoning.

When science "explains" something - it never explains it in terms of itself.

Science explains through reductionism. To "explain" water is to explain it in terms of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

To explain Hydrogen and Oxygen is to explain them in terms of atoms.
To explain atoms is to explain them in terms of protons and electrons.

Turtles all the way down....

Lets start here: Would you be satisfied with a reductionist answer? Because Neuroscience will only give you reductionist answers in terms of "retinas", "optical nerves", "neurons" and "visual cortices", "neurotransmitters", "cells" etc.

And you are clearly dissatisfied with reductionist answers.

[Skepdick]

So I guess that the end of any serious conversation with you about this issue.

I am being dead serious when I am pointing out that you don't understand your own question.

As insulting as this may sound to you. It's true.

[I Like Sushu]

So I guess that the end of any serious conversation with you about this issue.

I am being dead serious when I am pointing out that you don't understand your own question.

As insulting as this may sound to you. It's true.

Be charitable. Maybe it’s a little nebulous. I’m sure there are different ways for them to express the question (whatever it is?)

I don’t understand the question, but I’ve been down that road before. Perhaps using the term ‘quale’ would help? I’m not a fan of it but it seems to fit something akin to what Steve is attempting to refer to.