Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

[AgnosticBoy]

Critics of scientific realism ask how the inner perception of mental images actually occurs. This is sometimes called the "homunculus problem" (see also the mind's eye). The problem is similar to asking how the images you see on a computer screen exist in the memory of the computer. To scientific materialism, mental images and the perception of them must be brain-states. According to critics, scientific realists cannot explain where the images and their perceiver exist in the brain. To use the analogy of the computer screen, these critics argue that cognitive science and psychology have been unsuccessful in identifying either the component in the brain (i.e., "hardware") or the mental processes that store these images (i.e. "software").

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

I presented this argument a few months ago on this forum. I will play more of an information-seeking role here because I was left unsatisfied in the last thread. So again, I pose this challenge to materialists to use empirically-verifiable evidence to explain how or why mental images are physical when we DO NOT perceive them with our senses (hallucinations, dreams, etc).

Here's an easier way to put it:
1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

2. Since perception involves our senses, then how am I able to perceive mental images without my senses?

I want scientifically verifiable peer-reviewed evidence-based answers to my questions. If you don't know, then just admit it. Don't simply tell me that scientists will figure it out - that's FAITH ... not scientific EVIDENCE.

[Clownboat]

In order to better conform to the rules of this site:

Feel free to debate or withdraw.

......... I don't see fruitful debate as being likely. See post 165 if anyone is wondering why this is the case.

[William]

If anyone wants to debate the points I brought up in Post #166 , please do. Otherwise, I think what is covered there is sufficient to show that consciousness can be thought of as something which is not so much created by the brain as it is something we don't fully understand which uses the temporary brain to experience the temporary human condition.

[Clownboat]

Otherwise, I think what is covered there is sufficient to show that consciousness can be thought of as something which is not so much created by the brain as it is something we don't fully understand which uses the temporary brain to experience the temporary human condition.

To address both statements in bold:
I can think that our brains are potatoes. I can also acknowledge that we don't fully understand our brains. As you can see, my words are meaningless and inform us of absolutely nothing.
#self-reflect

I wish there was something to debate, because our consciousness is interesting to me, but I'm not here to debate things people can think/dream up nor it is interesting to be told that we don't understand something that we clearly don't fully understand.

In an attempt to try to make this fruitful:
At this point, I'm left acknowledging that or ability to be conscious is best explained by our functioning brains (leaving so far unsaid claims as being a possible alternative). Do you acknowledge this as a real possibility, or do you reject if for a reason that isn't you thinking something up or just calling it not understood?

For example: Our brains may in fact not be enough to explain why we are conscious, because of X, Y or Z.... <------ This would be way more interesting than imagining that our brains are not enough or admitting we don't fully understand consciousness. Surely you agree?

[RBD]

Here's an easier way to put it:
1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

Because they're observably not physical, but spiritual.

The real question is if animals have spiritual thoughts, other than instinctive action alone. I don't believe so. I believe the patience of animals is so great, because they don't sit around thinking about things, like people do, and sometimes drive themselves restless.

2. Since perception involves our senses, then how am I able to perceive mental images without my senses?

If you mean physical sense, then you need to prove imagery, perception, understanding, imagination, etc...is a physical sense. Otherwise, it's only by spiritual sense that things are perceived, and not just observed.

[Clownboat]

Here's an easier way to put it:
1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

Because they're observably not physical, but spiritual.

Please show that you speak the truth or kindly retract this claim.

The real question is if animals have spiritual thoughts, other than instinctive action alone. I don't believe so.

When us humans define what an animal is, thoughts are not involved.
To show that I speak the truth:
an·i·mal
/ˈanəm(ə)l/
noun
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

I believe the patience of animals is so great, because they don't sit around thinking about things, like people do, and sometimes drive themselves restless.

This is not interesting.

2. Since perception involves our senses, then how am I able to perceive mental images without my senses?

If you mean physical sense, then you need to prove imagery, perception, understanding, imagination, etc...is a physical sense.

Since the physical is known to exist, it is actually yourself that needs to demonstrate some spiritual sense. It seems as if you are just claiming that it exists.

Otherwise, it's only by spiritual sense that things are perceived, and not just observed.

This reads as nonsense. Can you elucidate?

[William]

I think what is covered here is sufficient to show that consciousness can be thought of as something which is not so much created by the brain as it is something we don't fully understand which uses the temporary brain to experience the temporary human condition.


If anyone wants to debate the points I brought up in Post #166 , please do.


Consciousness cannot be reduced to neural mechanics, because it is not an object in the brain but the field in which brain, body, and world appear. Awareness erases the boundary between inside and outside, unifying reactions into lived experience. This field is interlinked across persons, visible in patterns of synchronicity and meaning, which explains why theism persists—not merely as belief, but as a structural expression of how consciousness engages its reality.