AgnosticBoy wrote:
I'm willing to be more lenient. If you can't afford to build such a computer (that was Divine Insight's explanation) then at least work with the brain we have and demonstrate with scientific peer-reviewed evidence how the brain produces subjective experience, such as our perception of mental imagery.
Scientists are working on this. What we are objecting to is your premature jumping to conclusions before any conclusive evidence has been produced.
Your idea that because we can't observe actual images in the brain this means that "mental images" are not physical is simple non-sequitur. And we have already tried to explain this to you by showing how there are no actual images stored in a computer.
So your conclusion are simple false. This has absolutely nothing to do with the willingness of scientists in general to try to explain subjective experience. You are simply wrong in your assertions that your non-sequitur conclusions are making any sense.
AgnosticBoy wrote:
It seems as if you're grasping for any or all brain hardware or physical process to say that that's all images involve.
False. In fact, when we are talking about the subjective experiences of perceiving an image, no actual images even need to be involved at all. All that is required is the "
perception" of an image.
AgnosticBoy wrote:
The fact is that only specific types of physical processes and hardware enable us to perceive an images. Using science and logic, I've already explained what's involved in our perception of images (sensory stimuli, sensory organs, visible light, and all objectively observable -IF purely physical, etc). None of these factors are present when it comes to our perception of mental imagery.
And this is nothing more than a display of your own failure to understand the problem at hand.
It most certainly doesn't require repeating the same process of physical sensory input inside the brain in order to perceive an image. If that were the case then you would need an infinite regression of these processes in order to perceive anything at all.
All you are doing is claiming that the input method of viewing external images must be repeated within the brain in order to create the perception of having seen the image.
That's clearly not what's going on. You apparently have a very naive idea of what needs to occur within a brain in order to create the perception of having seen an image.
And we have already demonstrated this by explaining to you that this isn't even what happens within a computer. So we already know that this isn't what happens.
Even a computer doesn't "
perceive" images in the way you are demanding that a brain must do. So we have already demonstrated the fallacy of your argument. You just haven't yet understood that demonstration.
AgnosticBoy wrote:
Some materialists here (DrNoGods, Divine Insight) have pointed to specific components and processes, like memory and visual cortex, that are involved in mental imagery. While this shows what's involved, their explanations still fall short in that they lack empirical evidence to demonstrate how or what would enable us to have "internal" images, that happen to be nonphysical (e.g. hallucinations) and internal perception to perceive them.
Please note: Just because I understand the materialistic view does not mean that I'm a "
materialist". I'm not arguing for a materialistic worldview. None the less, I will point out when people have the scientific knowledge of physics wrong.
I can understand physics without embracing a materialistic worldview. I neither embrace it nor dismiss it. I'm agnostic when it comes to knowing the true nature of reality.
We don't need to explain how subjective consciousness works. All we need to do is observe that subjective consciousness is always accompanied by electrical activity in the brain. That's all we need to show.
This doesn't amount to a materialistic explanation of subjective experience. But it does demonstrate that you claim that there is no physics involved in the process is clearly false.
And that's all we need to show. You are claiming that something "non-physical" needs to be going on. And we have shown that your claim is false. There is no evidence that anything non-physical "needs" to occur in this process.
That's all we need to show. We don't need to explain how subjective experience actually works. We openly confess that we do not yet have the answer to that question.
But you are still wrong in your demand that it has been shown that something non-physical needs to occur in the process. That is simply wrong. That has not been demonstrated to be required.
AgnosticBoy wrote:
To reiterate the point in the quote at the beginning of this post, we certainly haven't engineered this ability in computers since there are no "internal" images nor are there any internal subjective or "first-person" experience (perceptual like) to even be aware of these types of images to begin with. The simple fact is that images in the form of digital information only exist in fully extracted and perceivable form when it gets transmitted to a screen or printed out.
This is actually wrong as well. A computer can use the non-image binary information to work on "images" within a program without any need to reconstruct the data into an actual image. In fact, computers do this sort of thing all the time. Especially programs that are used for navigation, etc. In fact these techniques are used in computer generated games constantly.
So a computer can "
perceive" the information contained in the data used to store an image in terms of making sense of that data for navigational purposes, etc.
No actual image is required.
So you are jumping to incorrect conclusions constantly.
AgnosticBoy wrote:
It does not only involve the flow of electricity and chemicals. Mental imagery involves color, shape, dimensions, and can even be projected onto physical space without really occupying space (e.g. hallucinations).
Wait a minute! What do you mean it can even be projected onto physical space without occupying space (e.g. hallucinations).
What makes you say that? Do you think that when you see a hallucination you are actually seeing a projection in front of you via your eyeballs?
I'm certain that hallucinations don't work this way.
I think the whole problem with your entire approach is that you are viewing the brain from the vantage point of being a little man sitting inside the brain watching the entire show. For this reason you believe that hallucinations must actually produce physical images that you can "see" with your eyes. And you seem to even think that if you can "see" an image inside your brain it must be on some sort of screen where this little man in the chair can then look at the screen and see the image.
All you are doing here is creating an infinite regression hypothesis.
Because keep in mind, all your explanation would then need to be applied to the little man sitting in the brain. He too would then need to have a brain that works precisely as our brain works. So he would then need to have an even smaller man sitting inside his brain, and so on ad infinitude.
Clearly your thinking is wrong here.
In fact, if you are thinking in terms of some non-physical soul being the ultimate agent of experience, then
by your own arguments this non-physical soul would need to have eyeballs to see the light from these physical images that you claim must exist.
Your entire approach to the problem is extremely flawed. It cannot be how you imagine it to be. Your idea only ends up creating an infinite regression of light, eyeballs, and images. There would never be a way to terminate this process, UNLESS,.....
Unless DrNoGods and I are right. Only then can the process ever end.
Our explanation would be the end of the road.
AgnosticBoy wrote:
None of these features I brought up, have been shown to be properties of "electricity", "chemicals", nor a physical brain. You could say that these are involved in leading to physical perception but then we'd have to bring in more components, like sensory stimuli, sensory organs, etc.
Only if we're going to go back to the infinite regression of a little man being inside the brain of every little man ad infinitude.
Only then would we need to keep repeating the same process over and over and over again.
AgnosticBoy wrote:
Besides your lack of empirical evidence, have we even engineered this in computers. In other words, does the flow of electricity in a computer lead to "internal" images and enable the ability to perceive them, or are they only perceivable once transferred to monitors?
How are you using the term "perceive" here? :-ki
If I walk into a room that has motion detectors and a camera connected to my computer, and my computer says, "Hello, I see you have just walked in the front door".
Did my computer just "perceive" my presence?
If so, then computers can perceive things. And if they can perceive eternal input, then they can also perceive the results of their own "thinking".
If you reject this idea of "
perception" and instead are attempting to use the term to mean "
sentient subjective experience", then that's a totally different subject entirely.
I personally don't believe that a digital computer could ever have a truly "
sentient subjective experience" in the same way a human does. I believe it could simulate behavior that appears to have that quality. But as long as it's a digital computer just processing machine code on a CPU I personally believe that it could never have a truly sentient experience.
I personally believe that in order to create that phenomenon an analog computer would be required. But our brains are analog computers. That's what they are.
So there may be a way to explain how it is that we can have a "
sentient subjective experience". The explanation may be found in the analog processes.
In fact, that's where I would place my money if we're taking bets.
AgnosticBoy wrote:
But the experience that I'm talking about isn't about experiencing 1's and 0's. In the case of mental images, we have a perceptual-like experience of "images".
Irrelevant. Once again, this is nothing more than your own inability to recognize that for a computer 1's and 0's are the way it perceives things. In fact that's the only thing that digital computers can truly perceive.
Things change dramatically for an analog computer. There are no 1's and 0's involved in an analog computer.
Our brains are analog computers, not digital computers.
AgnosticBoy wrote:
Except that we know how data on a computer leads to an image. We perceive that data "physically" with monitors, light, etc. I would like to see proof of how that would work in our brain since we have no monitors/speakers in our minds yet we still experience imagery, sound, etc.
You just shot your own position in the foot right there.
If we have no monitor/speakers in our minds then why would you think it would be necessary to have a physical image in our mind in order to perceive one?
Yet that was your entire argument. You are arguing that there are no physical images in the brain when we perceive a mental image.
Well duh? Why would there need to be? There are no physical sensors in the brain to detect any physical images anyway.
So you actually just confirmed our points.
Whatever is going on within the brain apparently doesn't require physical images.
End of story. The materialists win this argument whether they are actually materialists or not.
