Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
SteveKlinko

ESP Using The Inter Mind Model

449 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

SteveKlinko
7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

False.  This is a topic I (and science) understands very well indeed.  Especially seein' I'm partial (Red-Green) colorblind, but also have an intense interest in digital imaging and color theory.

It is relatively easy to create a mechanical/electronic 'eye' that can identify colors far better than the eye or brain can.  A digital camera does that, and then things ranging from night vision cameras thru spectrometers thru 3d scanners can refine and expand it to extremes.

There will of course always be pseudo-psychology claims that you can't compare one person's red with another's.  But that is a meaningless debate.  It is like any other human perception - they just trigger brain activity (response and storage) just as any sense does.  It is simply about receptors that respond to differing light frequencies (some accurate, some not so..) which then create appropriate brain actions.  If we can measure (and we can) the exact frequencies that create the red color, then what your brain actually presents that color as, in your perception, doesn't matter and isn't really measurable except as far as electronic neurological activity.

And as that colorblind person, my neurological activity DOES differ from yours, when I am viewing red tones*.  But that doesn't make it in any way mystical or unexplainable.   Don't over think it...

 

* note that we even know *how* my reds differ from yours - they are darker and much less saturated.  How do we know that?  Because I can wear corrective glasses that intensify my 'weak' colors to the point that I can pass a colorblindness test that I would normally fail, and I can then report what the 'corrected' red (and other colors) look like.

What you are talking about, and the thing that Science knows are the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience. Science understands how receptors on the Retina capture the Light and convert the Light into processed signals that represent the Red , Green , and Blue components.  These signals end up in the Visual Cortex where the main Visual processing happens. All kinds of Neurons fire and feedback processing occurs. But all this processing cannot explain the Visual Experience that we have. The Visual Experience just hovers in front of our faces depicting the scene we are looking at. You need to think more Deeply about your own Visual Experience. You will eventually not be so sure about how the Neural Activity could ever create such a thing as that High Def, Wide Screen, Visual Experience (whatever it is that you See) that is embedded in the front of your face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
3 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

But all this processing cannot explain the Visual Experience that we have.

To me you just explained it:  "Science understands how receptors on the Retina capture the Light and convert the Light into processed signals that represent the Red , Green , and Blue components.  These signals end up in the Visual Cortex where the main Visual processing happens. All kinds of Neurons fire and feedback processing occurs. " 

What do you think all that 'processing' you are referring to is resulting in if not 'the Visual Experience that we have'?  Given all this processing that you admit is occurring, how do you think we should be experiencing that if you think our current visual experience doesn't explain it?  I think that the signals you mentioned that end up in the visual cortex result in the 'high def, widescreen visual experience' we have; why is all of that processing insufficient for that experience?  Again, I think you are confusing our inability to describe something with language with the idea that something 'can't be explained and is thus entirely unknown'.  All language is imperfect/incomplete at providing descriptions.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

To me you just explained it:  "Science understands how receptors on the Retina capture the Light and convert the Light into processed signals that represent the Red , Green , and Blue components.  These signals end up in the Visual Cortex where the main Visual processing happens. All kinds of Neurons fire and feedback processing occurs. " 

What do you think all that 'processing' you are referring to is resulting in if not 'the Visual Experience that we have'?  Given all this processing that you admit is occurring, how do you think we should be experiencing that if you think our current visual experience doesn't explain it?  I think that the signals you mentioned that end up in the visual cortex result in the 'high def, widescreen visual experience' we have; why is all of that processing insufficient for that experience?  Again, I think you are confusing our inability to describe something with language with the idea that something 'can't be explained and is thus entirely unknown'.  All language is imperfect/incomplete at providing descriptions.

I think @SteveKlinko is saying we can describe the physical activity of all these events all the way down to the observation of the activity of every single atom and electron in the eye and brain. We all agree on that. But what is it that EXPERIENCES the big picture as a single experience with all these individual parts involved?  A physicalist model seems to require another magic step in the process of conscious seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I think @SteveKlinko is saying we can describe the physical activity of all these events all the way down to the observation of the activity of every single atom and electron in the eye and brain. We all agree on that. But what is it that EXPERIENCES the big picture as a single experience with all these individual parts involved?  A physicalist model seems to require another magic step in the process of conscious seeing.

The brain experiences the big picture as a 'single experience' (to use your term, it's usually not really a single experience).  Same question to you: given just the physical activity and components of all these events, what should we be experiencing instead of our current conscious experiences?  I'd argue that question needs to be answered in order for us to have some basis for even suggesting there's something missing that would require a 'magic step', and I don't know what you are proposing this 'magic step' is even doing.  I have eyes that can sense light and I have a brain that interprets those signals and can tell the differences in visual input between red and blue - looking at the organs involved, why do you think that we would experience 'vision' as something different than what we currently do? 

The hole to me is that I can't describe to you what red looks like to me and why it does, that seems to me to pretty clearly just be a deficiency in language, not in any physicalist model.  I don't think you dispute that our ability to differentiate red from other colors is explained by the nature of light and our physical organs; some animals can do this too after all.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 Same question to you: given just the physical activity and components of all these events, what should we be experiencing instead of our current conscious experiences? 

My answer would be in a physicalist model, I would expect no conscious activity much like we assume our TV is not having a conscious experience but processing its inputs mechanically and not experiencing any big picture overall experience. It is reducible to individual atoms and electrons moving around with nothing to grasp a big picture understanding. 

Edit: As an example we would throw a TV into a garbage truck and watch it get crushed with no moral concern. We would not feel that coldly about doing it to an animal though. We recognize a difference between animate (possessing consciousness) and inanimate (not possessing consciousness) things that can have subjective (more than the sum of its parts) experiences. What is this difference? I would say 'life' is incarnated by an experiencing consciousness.

The contrasting theory to physicalism that I subscribe to is that Consciousness is fundamental (not created by anything) and incarnates material bodies to experience and is capable of this big picture experience.

Physicalism: Matter is fundamental and consciousness is a derivative of matter

Idealism: Consciousness is fundamental and matter is a derivative of consciousness

Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

 

 

All philosophical debating aside,  after decades of interest in the so-called paranormal, I can not see the physicalist/materialist model standing up against the observations. The idealist view stands up nicely in that consciousness can incarnate physical and subtle (i.e. astral) bodies.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

My answer would be in a physicalist model, I would expect no conscious activity much like we assume our TV is not having a conscious experience but processing its inputs mechanically and not experiencing any big picture overall experience. It is reducible to individual atoms and electrons moving around with nothing to grasp a big picture understanding. 

But TVs (in your example) don't think, our brains do.  Our brains and all animals' brains are physically constructed to be a network, to simultaneously combine multiple sensory inputs and construct some kind of impression about reality, because to not do so is a good way to not survive to procreate.  We can right now call that network of multiple sensory inputs 'consciousness'.  "Big picture" requires a definition, that is an important part of this topic, what you believe I think requires an explanation needs to be well-defined before we resort to the necessity of 'magic'.  My cat can see some colors too and has consciousness, but I don't think it has what I usually call a big picture understanding.

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

All philosophical debating aside,  after decades of interest in the so-called paranormal, I can not see the physicalist/materialist model standing up against the observations.

After decades of seeing claims like this I have yet to see a serious claim against the materialist model.  "Stories" should not be confused with "observations".  

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The idealist view stands up nicely in that consciousness can incarnate physical and subtle (i.e. astral) bodies.

Of course it does, there's nothing to confine this 'view' right now, like reality.  'Magic spells' and 'The Matrix' also explain, well, everything perfectly too so this doesn't say much.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Edit: As an example we would throw a TV into a garbage truck and watch it get crushed with no moral concern. We would not feel that coldly about doing it to an animal though. We recognize a difference between animate (possessing consciousness) and inanimate (not possessing consciousness) things that can have subjective (more than the sum of its parts) experiences. What is this difference?

Nerve endings.  Show me the physical components that allow for a TV to feel pain and suffer and we'd have a better comparison here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
6 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Nerve endings.  Show me the physical components that allow for a TV to feel pain and suffer and we'd have a better comparison here.

That takes us back to the question of what experiences the movement of the atoms and electrons in the nerve cells and brain? Why are nerve cells and neuron cell activity different in that respect than TV circuit activity. I say animate cells are incarnated with something non-physical called consciousness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SteveKlinko
20 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

To me you just explained it:  "Science understands how receptors on the Retina capture the Light and convert the Light into processed signals that represent the Red , Green , and Blue components.  These signals end up in the Visual Cortex where the main Visual processing happens. All kinds of Neurons fire and feedback processing occurs. " 

What do you think all that 'processing' you are referring to is resulting in if not 'the Visual Experience that we have'?  Given all this processing that you admit is occurring, how do you think we should be experiencing that if you think our current visual experience doesn't explain it?  I think that the signals you mentioned that end up in the visual cortex result in the 'high def, widescreen visual experience' we have; why is all of that processing insufficient for that experience?  Again, I think you are confusing our inability to describe something with language with the idea that something 'can't be explained and is thus entirely unknown'.  All language is imperfect/incomplete at providing descriptions.

Of course the Visual Experience is Correlated with all that Neural Processing. But Correlation does not Explain how the actual Experience happens. Let's narrow the scope and look at one specific aspect of the Visual Experience. Let's consider the Experience of Redness. What possible Neural Activity (Firing, Chemical Transfer, Feedback Loop, etc.) in the Brain causes the Experience of Redness in the Visual Field of View? Show me how I See Redness, or any other Color. If you think that the Neural Activity in and of itself Explains it, then the only thing I can do is ask you to think more Deeply about your own Visual Experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

That takes us back to the question of what experiences the movement of the atoms and electrons in the nerve cells and brain?

The brain, specifically the physical parts of the brain that are built to react to the movement of atoms and electrons in certain ways. 

12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Why are nerve cells and neuron cell activity different in that respect than TV circuit activity.

Because the brain is not the same as a television, obviously? Where are the physical counterparts to the visual cortex and cognition in a TV?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
2 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

Let's consider the Experience of Redness. What possible Neural Activity (Firing, Chemical Transfer, Feedback Loop, etc.) in the Brain causes the Experience of Redness in the Visual Field of View? Show me how I See Redness, or any other Color.

Do you doubt that we have the physical organs and corresponding sensory processing in our physical brains to differentiate red from other colors?  I assume not since you seem to understand we have a visual cortex.  Given this, when we look at something red how are you expecting that to be experienced, how are you expecting the differentiation of red to manifest itself in your thoughts/perception, since it's apparently not the perception of the color red you currently have?

Right now it just seems like you are just playing on the fact that there is always another 'why' or 'how' question that can be asked about anything.  Tell me something you don't question at all or that you agree is 'explained' by the physical, and I can also come up with a 'show me how' request that you also cannot respond to.  

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Looks like the goal post is constantly on the move.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The brain, specifically the physical parts of the brain that are built to react to the movement of atoms and electrons in certain ways. 

This is not really moving the answer up the court. These physical parts are just atoms and electrons themselves just in different formation. What experiences all this a single consciousness? A TV has all kinds of physical parts that react to the activity of other parts too but we don't suspect a conscious experience from all of that. Even if you stick to your physicalist theory you must admit there is still a dramatic step that has no current explanation or even strong theory.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
45 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

What experiences all this a single consciousness?

Again, the brain.  I think I'll pose the same questions to you that I posed to Steve in the post right after yours above concerning the color red, please explain given the physical equipment we do have how that should be experienced, then maybe you'll be able to explain what part of it you think is unexplained.

48 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

A TV has all kinds of physical parts that react to the activity of other parts too but we don't suspect a conscious experience from all of that.

What in a TV is similar to a brain, physically?

48 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Even if you stick to your physicalist theory you must admit there is still a dramatic step that has no current explanation or even strong theory.

A dramatic step from what?  The sun and a river and a spider are also 'just' atoms and electrons themselves in a different formation but have dramatically different behavior and effects.  What part of perceiving the color red is a 'dramatic step' and supposedly has no current explanation or strong theory? Is it only 'dramatic' in humans, or is it also in every other creature that can perceive color?  Please be as specific as possible, and point out the component of the experience you think the physical brain is not capable of producing, and the evidence that it is insufficient.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SteveKlinko
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Do you doubt that we have the physical organs and corresponding sensory processing in our physical brains to differentiate red from other colors?  I assume not since you seem to understand we have a visual cortex.  Given this, when we look at something red how are you expecting that to be experienced, how are you expecting the differentiation of red to manifest itself in your thoughts/perception, since it's apparently not the perception of the color red you currently have?

Right now it just seems like you are just playing on the fact that there is always another 'why' or 'how' question that can be asked about anything.  Tell me something you don't question at all or that you agree is 'explained' by the physical, and I can also come up with a 'show me how' request that you also cannot respond to.  

I'm not looking for another Why or How. I'm looking for the first Why or How. There is currently Zero How for Neural Activity producing Conscious Experience. You seem to completely not recognize that there is a next step after Neural Processing. That next step is the Conscious Experience. But you might not have the Conscious Experiences. You must perceive your Visual Experience as Neural Activity in some way that I don't understand. You certainly do not understand the Conscious Visual Experience. You insist it is only Neural Activity. I have talked to many people like you. I suspected, a couple of years ago, that people might be Physicalists/Materialists because they actually do not have Conscious Experiences. Seems very strange to not have Conscious Experiences, but then Conscious Experiences seem strange to you. We seem to have different Perceptual Mechanisms. Because of past discussions with people like you I know we are at a Standoff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
4 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

please explain given the physical equipment we do have how that should be experienced, then maybe you'll be able to explain what part of it you think is unexplained.

 

My point is that I think 'nothingshould be experienced in a physicalist model. There should just be atoms and electrons following natural laws and no overall experiencer anywhere in the picture. Why there is this overall experience is the total mystery that physicalism needs to at least admit it's lack of understanding.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

I have talked to many people like you. I suspected, a couple of years ago, that people might be Physicalists/Materialists because they actually do not have Conscious Experiences.

That just sounds like a different spin on the "I am more evolved/better than you because (insert reason here)." argument. 

Basically it's like calling people stupid because they don't see things your way.

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
Posted (edited)

More elitist b.s..

Edited by XenoFish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

That just sounds like a different spin on the "I am more evolved/better than you because (insert reason here)." argument. 

Basically it's like calling people stupid because they don't see things your way.

Yeah, typical new age "spritual"/religious arrogant insecurity

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yeah, typical new age "spritual"/religious arrogant insecurity

It's garbage. Just another way for people to pump up themselves. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My point is that I think 'nothingshould be experienced in a physicalist model.

Based on what?  We have physical eyes working with a physical visual cortex that can differentiate red from other colors.  Your position is that there is no way for 'red' to be identified in any way by beings, even given the existence of these physical components that some lower animals share?  Do you similarly think the whole physical nervous system is fundamentally lacking in understanding, there's no physical explanation for why pain is experienced?

14 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

There should just be atoms and electrons following natural laws and no overall experiencer anywhere in the picture.

What's an 'overall experience'?  As I've already said, atoms and electrons following natural laws already produce amazing, and ultimately similarly 'unexplainable', things, you're just singling out parts of our consciousness as lacking understanding for some reason.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
27 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

You seem to completely not recognize that there is a next step after Neural Processing. That next step is the Conscious Experience.

What is the neural processing doing then if not creating the conscious experience?  Since the conscious experience vanishes if you remove this neural processing, why don't you think one is causing the other?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SteveKlinko
5 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What is the neural processing doing then if not creating the conscious experience?  Since the conscious experience vanishes if you remove this neural processing, why don't you think one is causing the other?

Yes, but you are still avoiding the issue, which is How does the Neural Processing create the Conscious Experience? Or do you not have a Conscious Visual Experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Based on what?  We have physical eyes working with a physical visual cortex that can differentiate red from other colors.  Your position is that there is no way for 'red' to be identified in any way by beings, even given the existence of these physical components that some lower animals share? 

A computer with a camera can distinguish colors even more acutely than us. But there is no EXPERIENCE of color.

8 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 Do you similarly think the whole physical nervous system is fundamentally lacking in understanding, there's no physical explanation for why pain is experienced?

Yes, I think there is no physicalist explanation for why pain is experienced. You can describe all the physical activity in perfect detail but how do all these individual atoms and electrons following natural laws produce a subjective experience? I guess we are stuck at a standoff on that question.

 

Note: I believe all living things (not just human) have non-physical components. And that is what separates animate from inanimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SteveKlinko
20 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

That just sounds like a different spin on the "I am more evolved/better than you because (insert reason here)." argument. 

Basically it's like calling people stupid because they don't see things your way.

Don't know if it is better to have the Conscious Experience or not. There may simply be different types of Perception. Since nobody really knows what they are talking about, anything could eventually be proven correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.