Mental imagery as non-physical experience

[AgnosticBoy]

On another thread, I argued that mental imagery is nonphysical in that it lacks physical characteristics. Some materialists disagreed offering nothing more than a future promise that we'll discover how they're "purely physical". Here's one description of a type of mental imagery:

A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception. Hallucinations are vivid, substantial, and are perceived to be located in external objective space. They are distinguishable from these related phenomena: dreaming, which does not involve wakefulness; illusion, which involves distorted or misinterpreted real perception; imagery, which does not mimic real perception and is under voluntary control; and pseudohallucination, which does not mimic real perception, but is not under voluntary control.[1] Hallucinations also differ from "delusional perceptions", in which a correctly sensed and interpreted stimulus (i.e., a real perception) is given some additional (and typically absurd) significance.

Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality—visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

My view is that the perception of mental images constitutes an experience of something non-physical. For those who think otherwise, please do the following:

Explain how or why the experience of hallucinations is physical or of something physical.

[AgnosticBoy]

Mental images are non physical and are involved in causation so clearly causation and "processes" are not isolated to just physical entities. Apparently you forgot about the study I posted earlier on mental weight lifting.

Where is your proof that "mental images" are non physical?

I haven't seen any proof on this at all. All I've heard thus far are logically flawed arguments.

My computer can lift weights too via nothing more than a software program. Is a computer program 'non physical'?

In fact, auto manufactures have robots that can build entire automobiles via nothing more than computer programs.

If a computer program can cause weights to be lifted why should we be surprised that a human brain can do this as well?

Then you're apparently not understanding the point behind my arguments. Here's what I feel that I've successfully argued for here:

- I've proven that mental images are different than physical images.
- I've proven (or reiterated a basic fact of science) "physical" perception would involve our senses, visible light, space, etc.
- I've proven that mental images lack the physical properties that would be perceptible to our senses, yet we still perceive (experience - visual-like) mental images.


Materialists here argue:
- Scientists don't really understand perception
- Scientists will at some future time discover ways to perceive that don't involve our senses and it will still be physical
- Electricity has subjective experience
- Chemicals have subjective experience

This is complete nonsense from the materialist side. It takes denying basic scientific facts and logic to argue such claims.

[Divine Insight]

- I've proven that mental images are different than physical images.

Wrong. You haven't proven anything. And you most certainly haven't proven that mental images are different from "physical" images. All you've done is suggest that the evidence seems to indicate that mental images are not the same as visual images that require visual light for eyeballs sensors to detect.

Where has anyone ever suggested that mental images are the same as visual images sensed by light?

Just because mental images aren't the same as eyeballs looking at light doesn't mean they are "non-physical.

So so you haven't proven that mental images are different from "physical" images at all. They would just involve a different physical process. That's all. So you have no proven what you think you have proven.

You are mistaken. What you have argued for here is "Bad Science".

- I've proven (or reiterated a basic fact of science) "physical" perception would involve our senses, visible light, space, etc.

I'll accept that as an obvious fact. No need for you to have claimed to have proven it.

- I've proven that mental images lack the physical properties that would be perceptible to our senses, yet we still perceive (experience - visual-like) mental images.

And therein lies your error.

Visual images that we sense through our eyes obviously require the physical senses associated with the propagation and detection of light.

So what?

That doesn't mean that we can't experience images via another mechanism entirely. In fact, when the light lands on the retina of the eye it is transformed into an electrical signal which is then transmitted to the brain. It is that electrical signal that ultimate becomes what the brain "perceives" as the image.

Therefore you can remove the light, and the eye, and instead just send electrical signals to the proper places of the brain causing a person to "see" an image. And in this case the image is nothing more than electrical activity taking place in the brain.

So your hang-up with light and eyeballs is totally irrelevant.

And now I have "proven" that your arguments on this issue fail.

Materialists here argue:
- Scientists don't really understand perception

I suggest that you are using the term perception loosely at best, and potentially incorrectly at worst.

The retina "perceives" light because this is where photons are exchanged for electrons and electrical current flow. But this doesn't meant hat the retina itself has had any actual "experience". So perception and experience are NOT the same thing.

Our brains then perceive these electrical signals from the retina via various parts of the brain. But that process of "perception" may or may not be the actual "experience".

In fact, we don't know where "experience" occurs. But we do know where 'perception' occurs and it may occur in multiple places along any given pathway.

So I suggest that you are confusing the terms "perception" and "experience". The are not the same thing.

In fact, perception is the process of "becoming aware" of something. My computer can sense when I come into the house and say hello to me. It's has "become aware" of my presence. Does this mean that my computer is having a sentient experience? I don't think so.

So perception and sentient experience are not the same thing. But you appear to be using them interchangeably.

- Scientists will at some future time discover ways to perceive that don't involve our senses and it will still be physical

They've already done that.

- Electricity has subjective experience
- Chemicals have subjective experience

We don't know the answer to that yet. It may be electrical patterns that are having a subjective experience. We just don't yet know the answer to these questions.

This is complete nonsense from the materialist side. It takes denying basic scientific facts and logic to argue such claims.

Hogwash.

And besides, what are the claims from the "spiritualist" side?

It's basically as follows:

"We have absolutely no clue what's going on so rather than allowing science to continue to research, we just want to proclaim that science is nonsense and there must be an invisible boogieman behind the whole shebang. That's the only thing that makes any SENSE!"

I don't think so.

And besides, why do you call yourself AgnosticBoy if you're going to claim to already have the answers?

An invisible boogieman is the answer?

That's just brilliant.

[AgnosticBoy]

And therein lies your error.

Visual images that we sense through our eyes obviously require the physical senses associated with the propagation and detection of light.

So what?

That doesn't mean that we can't experience images via another mechanism entirely. In fact, when the light lands on the retina of the eye it is transformed into an electrical signal which is then transmitted to the brain. It is that electrical signal that ultimate becomes what the brain "perceives" as the image.

You're arguing as if only the brain is involved in the process when light, eyes, an actual physical object are all required to have physical visual perception.

Without working eyes (more specifically the "lens"), there is no visual perception.

Just ask the people who are born blind while also having a brain! The brain has no visual perception for them because they're clearly impaired in one of the other factors involved in visual perception!!!!!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 42 by AgnosticBoy]

You're arguing as if only the brain is involved in the process when light, eyes, an actual physical object are all required to have physical visual perception.

Without working eyes (more specifically the "lens"), there is no visual perception.

Just ask the people who are born blind while also having a brain! The brain has no visual perception for them because they're clearly impaired in one of the other factors involved in visual perception!!!!!

You are completely missing the point again. No one is disputing that eyes, retina, etc. along with the brain are required to perceive an image via the process of physically looking at something with the eyes and having the perception of the image that is being looked at. So where did you get the inspiration to make the comments quoted above?

The point being made over and over again that you seem to be either missing, or not understanding at all, is that it is also possible for the brain to create the perception of an image without the use of eyes, retina or optic nerve ... ie. a mental image. This mental image may use some of the same brain components that are involved in perception of the visual (looked at with the eyes ) image at the end of the chain where the process of perception is implemented (however that is done at the molecular level). But whether this is the case or not doesn't alter the fact that a mental image can be created without the use of eyes or the other "front end" components in the physical, visual pathway, via purely physical processes within the brain. You have not disproven this at all, nor any of the other things you claim to have proven. You are just more loudly proclaiming your position without any more substantive facts to back it up.

- Scientists will at some future time discover ways to perceive that don't involve our senses and it will still be physical.

At this point, a physical explanation for mental images, hallucinations, etc. is far more believable than whatever it is that you are proposing as an alternative. You have yet to show that mental images are not created by the interactions of physical brain components (neurons, memory elements, etc.) working normally to create the preception of an image, so that explanation is very much alive and well until someone can prove it doesn't happen that way. It certainly makes rational sense given what we do already know about how the brain works, and doesn't involve any supernatural beings or forces of any kind.

(BTW as an aside ... is anyone else having problems with the spell checker not working?)

[AgnosticBoy]

Divine Insight:

You keep tripping over yourself trying to defend materialism. It has led to you overlooking or arguing against basic facts. You're doing nothing more than trying to explain physical perception of something NON-physical. A 'physical perception' won't work. Had you been working on this problem, you'd be HOLDing BACK science rather than trying to progress it towards explaining consciousness.

.....
DrNoGods

How can someone physically perceive something that is NON-physical? If that is illogical to try to explain then why does Divine Insight continue on trying to argue that we can physically perceive 'mental images'?

[Divine Insight]

And therein lies your error.

Visual images that we sense through our eyes obviously require the physical senses associated with the propagation and detection of light.

So what?

That doesn't mean that we can't experience images via another mechanism entirely. In fact, when the light lands on the retina of the eye it is transformed into an electrical signal which is then transmitted to the brain. It is that electrical signal that ultimate becomes what the brain "perceives" as the image.

You're arguing as if only the brain is involved in the process when light, eyes, an actual physical object are all required to have physical visual perception.

Without working eyes (more specifically the "lens"), there is no visual perception.

Just ask the people who are born blind while also having a brain! The brain has no visual perception for them because they're clearly impaired in one of the other factors involved in visual perception!!!!!

So are you saying that blind people cannot have "mental images" of any kind?

How about people who were once sighted but then lost their sight? They would then be blind. Surely if I became blind I would still be able to have mental images in my mind?

A person who has never been able to see from birth may not be able to have mental images for the simple reason that they had never experienced any visual images and therefore have no idea of what a mental image would even be.

However, if that's the case, then this actually supports the materialistic view even more. This would suggest that without having seen a visual image a brain would have difficulty in creating a mental image from scratch. That would imply that mental images are indeed nothing more than a recreation of a visual image. Or at least an attempt to recreate one.

So if blind people cannot have mental images that certainly doesn't help your argument. If blind people cannot have mental images, than this pretty much rules out the idea that mental images are "non-physical" and come from somewhere other than the physical world. If that were the case, then being physically blind shouldn't matter at all.

So you're arguing against your own position now.

Blind people not being able to conjure up mental images, actually supports materialism.

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight:

You keep tripping over yourself trying to defend materialism. It has led to you overlooking or arguing against basic facts. You're doing nothing more than trying to explain physical perception of something NON-physical. A 'physical perception' won't work. Had you been working on this problem, you'd be HOLDing BACK science rather than trying to progress it towards explaining consciousness.

If people who are born blind cannot form mental images in their mind, then your arguments fail miserably.

That would only prove that mental images are totally dependent on physical processes.

If they weren't then there would be no reason why blind people couldn't also conjure up non-physical mental images in their minds.

So I suggest that it's you who is tripping over your own arguments.

[AgnosticBoy]

Blind people not being able to conjure up mental images, actually supports materialism.

Blind people have brains, the thing that you were seemingly trying to argue was all that was really doing the perception. Now you've backtracked when you admitted that those born blind (while having a brain) have no visual perception. The brain by itself can not account for perception of physical images NOR mental images as you and DrNoGods are trying to argue!

[Divine Insight]

Blind people not being able to conjure up mental images, actually supports materialism.

Blind people have brains, the thing that you were seemingly trying to argue was all that was really doing the perception. Now you've backtracked when you admitted that those born blind (while having a brain) have no visual perception. The brain by itself can not account for perception of physical images NOR mental images as you and DrNoGods are trying to argue!

If you had been paying attention to our actual arguments you would know better than to make the above argument.

We are saying that the brain creates algorithms (or the analog equivalent) to create mental images.

A brain that was born blind never bothers to create visual algorithms because it has no sensory input that requires that processing. Therefore a brain that is born blind just never becomes wired that way.

This explanation not only makes perfect sense, but once again, it supports materialism.

So your argument fails again.

What you see as problems are not problems at all.

[AgnosticBoy]

This was your argument:

Therefore you can remove the light, and the eye, and instead just send electrical signals to the proper places of the brain causing a person to "see" an image. And in this case the image is nothing more than electrical activity taking place in the brain

Hmmmm,... Using only the brain to "see"?????

You've backtracked from your argument after I refuted it with an argument along the following lines:

Blind people have brains, the thing that you were seemingly trying to argue was all that was really doing the perception. Now you've backtracked when you admitted that those born blind (while having a brain) have no visual perception. The brain by itself can not account for perception of physical images NOR mental images as you and DrNoGods are trying to argue!