Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Steve Klinko, Dec 18, 2020.
According to Anil Seth, we predict our reality from the inside out as much as from the outside in.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I want to have a discussion with everybody, including people that have not studied Philosophy and Qualia. If you want to frame the discussion in terms of Qualia then go ahead. I speak all languages related to Consciousness.
Haahhhh! I knew it wouldn't take long before you would pester me with this Seth clip. He Explains nothing and even worse he steels the concept that Consciousness is a Hallucination from Max Clowes who talked about this back in the 60s and 70s.
Max Clowes, on AI?
And do you agree or disagree? Are hallucinations (qualia) emergent properties?
Saying that people don't understand what qualia are doesn't mean anything. Do you understand what qualia are?
What's your conclusion? Lay it out, so that we can discuss your perspective.
Your opening thesis uses the made-up term "PL" at least 80 times, and the made-up term "CL" at least 50 times. Every time I come across one of your terms I have to stop and translate it to real terms. It is impossible to parse this way and concentrate on the message rather than the translation.
If you have an idea you want to impart, you have an obligation to use universal language, rather than making your readers translate.
I will leave the discussion to your reader(s) who want to slog through all the work of translating your words.
Nobody knows what Hallucinations are. We only know they exist.
I Experience Qualia and all Sensory Conscious Experiences, but nobody knows what they are.
That is the question what are they?
Maybe I forgot to say that you can hover the pointer over any acronym to get the full text.
But if even that's too hard for you, then Bye. Thank You, for at least reading some of it.
correction; pray should read prey....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
While I am at it, have you ever looked at the "hard fact" of experiencing "empathy" and what is causal to that emotional experience that allows one to "enter" another's emotional reality?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, Dave and I are different persons and certainly not always in agreement.
But does that matter? I thought you were inviting all to participate in the discussion.
I don't study what to me are the more vague Experiences like Empathy. I study the five Sensory Experiences, plus some other things like Pain and Pleasure which might be lumped in with the Touch Sensation. But I specialize in the Human Visual Experience, and especially the Experience of the Color Red (Redness) because it is easy to sit back and find something Red to look at and study. It is less convenient to study the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste. I would need to carry around a tuning fork or salt tablets for times when I want to study these things.
Moderator note: Write4U is apparently trying to steer this thread into yet another discussion of Max Tegmark, micro-tubules and his other pet topics. I have split off posts on those topics to Write4U's microtubule thread. We don't need that stuff polluting yet more threads.
We cannot even begin to talk about the Inter Mind (IM) if we do not at least recognize the existence of a Conscious Mind (CM) separate from the Physical Mind (PM). We do not have to understand exactly what the CM is, but we must at least suspect that it is something. There are six arguments for the Conscious Mind. Here is the first:
1) The first argument is based on an engineering analysis approach where we trace the path of Light perception. The first thing that happens is that Physical Light (PL) enters the Eye and is focused onto the Retina. The instant the PL hits the Retina it activates the Rods and Cones. Various wavelengths of PL will preferentially activate various different Rods and Cones. The PL is absorbed by the Rods and Cones and the PL is no longer PL. What is left is an avalanche of chemical reactions that eventually fires a Neuron that sends a signal away from the Retina and to the Visual Areas (VAs) of the Cerebral Cortex. This happens for millions of Neurons at the same time with the signal from each Neuron bundled into the Optic Nerve. It’s a long journey from the Retina through the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus (LGN) of the Thalamus and to the Visual Areas which are located in the back of the head. During this whole trip from Eye to the VAs we are not dealing with PL anymore but rather this is of course Neural Light (NL). The NL signals eventually arrive at the first Visual Area (V1) get processed and are then sent to the second Visual Area (V2) and on to other Visual Areas V3, V4, V5, and more. All the areas also send signals back to previous Areas to create a giant mish mash of parallel processing that is difficult to completely quantify. All the processing and feedback is also NL since it is correlated with the PL. So all we can really say is that we experience NL not PL. We know when this NL happens that CL happens. The CL cannot be found in the Brain, and maybe someday it will be found there. But for now, we can only speculate that it is in some other Realm or Dimension or Space. I say CL is in Conscious Space (CSp). We can then speculate that there must be a Conscious Mind (CM) that exists in CSp that is experiencing the CL. A similar argument can be made if we trace the path of Physical Sound (PS) to Neural Sound (NS) and then to Conscious Sound (CS).
Here's one of the reasons you're not getting a lot of traction here, and getting banned elsewhere:
"Cranks tend to invent their own terminology, sometimes their own sciences, and tend to write in their own overcomplicated jargon. Beware of the article that discusses a science with terminology not found on Wikipedia."
"5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards)."
To be clear, I'm not calling you a crank or crackpot, I'm simply pointing out the red flags in your thesis that are hallmarks of cranks and crackpots.
This is one of the reasons I've been suggesting you use the existing lexicon.
I'm trying to help you, even if you don't like it.
Thank You ... I think.
I'm just trying to get people to see the Reality of their Conscious Existence. I think it is the act of a Crackpot to insist that the Redness, Standard A Tone, and Salty Taste are in the Neurons without Explaining how this could be. Science has tried for a Hundred years to push these Sensory Experiences into the Neurons and have not gotten any closer to doing it. Science does not have the first Clue as to what these Sensory Experiences are. Somebody has got to try a different approach. I'm giving it a try. Now that I have seen many people post links I feel safe to post the link to the website that Explains The Inter Mind with more detail and completeness:
It would help if you read other people's perspectives instead of dismissing all posts that do not agree with you word for word.
Several people have proposed that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, greater than the sum of its parts., but you have completely ignored that fairly common concept, which is not that different from your perspective, except for an entirely new vocabulary you have invented.
But you're not explaining how. You're simply using different words to point to the same abstract concepts. Your idea doesn't shed any more light on the problem that our current understanding doesn't already have. Words don't a theory make. what makes a theory is that it predicts things that can be checked. If it predicts better than our current model, it has some merit.
Does your idea predict any observations that are distinguishable from the currently accepted understanding? Can these predictions be tested?
I am completely familiar with that concept. What Explanatory power is there in the statement: "the mind is an emergent phenomenon, greater than the sum of its parts". This smacks of some kind of New Age pseudo reasoning. A lot of people like to just spew this out with no real understanding of what it means. I have read many writings on this over the last 20 years and I admit I don't know what they are talking about. Maybe I missed something. Ok so tell me How is it that the Mind is this Emergent Property? What is the Mechanism?
I was limited to 10k words in the OP. But now that it looks like there is no problem with links you should get the bigger picture:
It's quite clear. I means there is no element to consciousness over and above the physical brain itself. In one swell foop, it torpedoes any attempts to search for (or make a model of) any kind of disembodied mind. It declares that- were you to remove the physical gears of the brain itself, the neurons and synapses and other biological components - there would be no mind left.
That vastly reduces the set of valid models for the seat of the mind.
I get the feeling that you like labels. That all you need are a word or two, and you can accept of dismiss a thing.
My advice is to eschew reading authors who don't know what they're talking about, and prefer authors who do.
That is a brave admission.
OK, here's the thing. This thread is in the Alt Theories forum, which has specific rules about what can and can't be discussed. It is about your idea - you defending and us challenging it - and nothing else it is not an open discussion forum for anything anyone else wants to raise. That's why I reported Write4U's side threads so that they were removed.
If you want to have a discussion about the emergent mind, start a new thread in the appropriate forum.
Separate names with a comma.