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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 29 by Monta]

Few neurons produce consciousness is like saying three yo boy produced a missile.

Sorry ... I can't figure out what that is supposed to mean (unless "yo" was meant to be "young"?). But in any case, 100 billion neurons, and 1000 times that many synapses, is not a "few" by any definition. That is a LOT of neurons, and a lot of capability to do very complex things.

Quotes from scientists that consciousness drives the universe have already been produced here on the forum.

Uh ... I'm lost on that one too. A great number of quotes and other statements have been produced on this forum, and I think it's safe to say that some of it does not qualify as reference material. If a scientist makes a statement that consciousness drives the universe, that would need to be backed up with some sort of evidence or rationale before it carries any weight beyond simply that person's opinion.

Nikola Tesla did not have a problem with god-of-the-gaps and still retained
the title as the greatest scientist ever.

Greatest scientist ever? He was one scientist/inventor working mainly in the area of electricity and magnetism, but his accomplishments as a scientist do not compare with those of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and many others. Given the very different eras that scientists of history lived in, it is probably impossible to make a claim that just one name was 'the greatest." But I don't think Tesla would be at the top of that list.

In any case, what any scientist believes as far as gods or religion is not part of their contribution to science. That comes from the impact of their discoveries and theories on the understanding of the physical world we live in, and the confirmation of the validity of those contributions by other scientific observations and analyses.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 23 by DrNoGods]



"Exactly ... it seems to me that the default position should be that the complex physical interactions of the brain's components are working to produce consciousness, mental images, feelings, etc., and we simply need more work to understand the detailed mechanisms at a molecular or subsystem level.

The analogy to a god-of-the-gaps scenario where unknown things are assigned (all or in part) to the workings of mysterious spirits or forces is apropos. Explanations in that category have a historical win rate of exactly zero."

Few neurons produce consciousness is like saying three yo boy produced a missile.
Quotes from scientists that consciousness drives the universe have already been produced here on the forum.

Nikola Tesla did not have a problem with god-of-the-gaps and still retained
the title as the greatest scientist ever.

Refer to post #18. I quote from a leading scientist who has devoted many years trying to discover the neural correlates of consciousness. His approach has been very methodical, and explanations are very mechanistic. Yet, he has steadily been giving up on his reductionistic approach and now considers consciousness to be fundamental to living systems. This is what he now states of consciousness, "[it is] fundamentally different from the material thing causing it and that it can never be fully reduced to physical properties of the brain." He's worked closely with notable scientists like Francis Crick so I consider his view to be very informed. It's worth mentioning that David Chalmers, a leading philosopher of mind, takes it a bit further and considers consciousness to be a fundamental property of the Universe.

With that said, I question the confidence behind the 'promissory note" that materialists leave us with. They say scientists will discover a purely physical explanation for consciousness, but I wonder if instead they'll just drop that approach one-by-one just like leading neuroscientist Dr. Christof Koch.

You've totally lost it now.

Are you suggesting that when a person hallucinates seeing an elephant in front them an actual physical elephant magically appears in front of them that everyone else can see and scientists can physically measure?

We know that's demonstrably false.

Yet this is what you are arguing for.

Otherwise, if you claim that the elephant only resides in the imagination of the person who is hallucinating then you are totally on-board with science and your objections that an actual physical elephant must be there in order for the person to see it in their mind is nonsense.

Face it, your arguments fail. And now you are just refusing to concede that you were mistaken.

The way that we perceive real world physical objects is different from the way that we perceive mental objects (hallucinations, mental imagery, etc). That shows that there's a difference between the two objects. Scientists can not directly observe mental objects for a reason!

You have no real scientifically verified theory that explains mental imagery, let alone consciousness.

I think enough has been said here on my part.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 32 by AgnosticBoy]

This is what he now states of consciousness, "[it is] fundamentally different from the material thing causing it and that it can never be fully reduced to physical properties of the brain."

Let's break that statement down into two parts. I don't think any naturalists here would argue with the fact that consciousness is "fundamentally different from the material thing causing it." The material things causing it are the complex interactions of electrical signals, neurons, memory elements etc., and we just don't yet understand these interactions at a molecular and system level well enough to describe consciousness like we can describe, say, sight. But the fact that your source said "the material things causing it" indicates to me that he agrees that it is caused by the interactions of material things.

The second part of the statement "and it can never be fully reduced to physical properties of the brain", contradicts the first. If material things are causing it, then how can it NOT be reduced to physical properties of the brain? Aren't these exactly what he is referring to in the first part of the statement ("the material thing causing it")?

Consciousness, like thoughts, ideas, etc. is clearly not a physical "thing" in terms of being able to identify a section of the brain that you can carve out and say "this is the part of the brain that represents consciousness." It is a very complex result of large parts of the brain functioning as a system, and is a nonphysical "thing" by definition. But there is no reason to believe that these nonphysical consequences (perceptions) are not caused by the physical components of the brain functioning as a system to produce them.

You have no real scientifically verified theory that explains mental imagery, let alone consciousness.

I think enough has been said here on my part.

And you've yet to offer any alternative theory to explain either mental imagery or consciousness. You've challenged materialistic explanations all along and complained that science can't yet provide the answers you demand, but I've yet to see your alternative scientifically verified theory. What do you think is the correct explanation for mental imagery and consciousness, if not the result of the physical components of the brain operating normally to produce them?

[AgnosticBoy]

This is what he now states of consciousness, "[it is] fundamentally different from the material thing causing it and that it can never be fully reduced to physical properties of the brain."

Let's break that statement down into two parts. I don't think any naturalists here would argue with the fact that consciousness is "fundamentally different from the material thing causing it." The material things causing it are the complex interactions of electrical signals, neurons, memory elements etc., and we just don't yet understand these interactions at a molecular and system level well enough to describe consciousness like we can describe, say, sight. But the fact that your source said "the material things causing it" indicates to me that he agrees that it is caused by the interactions of material things.

I also accept that that consciousness is a result of physical interactions.

The part of the statement "and it can never be fully reduced to physical properties of the brain", contradicts the first. If material things are causing it, then how can it NOT be reduced to physical properties of the brain? Aren't these exactly what he is referring to in the first part of the statement ("the material thing causing it")?

One word, "emergence". Keep in mind that there's weak emergence and 'strong emergence' and consciousness fits the latter type. Here's how David Chalmers would respond:

From The Conscious Mind - pgs. 114-115

Sometimes it is objected that consciousness might be an emergent property, in a sense that is still compatible with materialism. In recent work on complex systems and arti�cial life, it is often held that emergent properties are unpredictable from low-level properties, but that they are physical all the same. Examples are the emergence of self-organization in biological systems, or the emergence of flocking patterns from simple rules in simulated birds (Langton 1990; Reynolds 1987). But emergent properties of this sort are not analogous to consciousness. What is interesting about these cases is that the relevant properties are not obvious consequences of low-level laws; but they are still logically supervenient on low-level facts. If all the physical facts about a biological system over time are given, the fact that self-organization is occurring will be straightforwardly derivable. This is just what we would expect, as properties such as self-organization and flocking are straightforwardly functional and structural.

If consciousness is an emergent property, it is emergent in a much stronger sense. There is a stronger notion of emergence, used by the British emergentists (e.g., Broad 1925), according to which emergent properties are not even predictable from the entire ensemble of low-level physical facts. It is reasonable to say (as the British emergentists did) that conscious experience is emergent in this sense. But this sort of emergence is best counted as a variety of property dualism. Unlike the more “innocent� examples of emergence given above,the strong variety requires new fundamental laws in order that the emergent properties emerge.

This will be my last post here. Thanks everyone for the contributions!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 34 by AgnosticBoy]

This will be my last post here. Thanks everyone for the contributions!

Giving up so soon? Here are your original questions:

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?

Short summary comments using the same numbering:

1) These things are not, themselves, physical. They are perceptions produced by the physical components of the brain operating as they do. So there is no reason to expect scientists to be able to directly observe them as they are not physical "things" that can be directly observed.

2) Evidently, not all perception does involve the senses. Otherwise it would not be possible to perceive mental images without your senses. Some other factors must be involved beyond the senses (eg. recall of stored information to produce the perception).

You didn't want the response that science will figure this out one day and wanted an answer right now, but some things just don't have a detailed mechanistic explanation yet and there is no option but to wait for it.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 35 by DrNoGods]

Doc,
I want to offer some questions for thought. Are you an atheist? If so, do you think that is why you don't want to give up your view on materialism? Your belief influences your view on mind and science?

Imagine this
[quote="ThePainefulTruth"]
"I agree. You, a heterosexual guy, we'll assume for the sake of argument, could have a dream about making love to Margo Robbie inside a rubber ball in orbit and therefore weightless. But then you wake up and she's not only gone, you know neither she nor you were ever there and was therefore a non-physical, that is imaginary experience--yet the physical evidence that the fantasy existed remains.

I hope this risque example doesn't offend anybody, but it couldn't have happened since I'm sure Margot has never been in orbit....physically."

How is it possible to experience these vivid visual dreams without our senses?

[William]

[Replying to post 28 by AgnosticBoy]

The object is not really there which means not physical. It is not occupying the space that you see it in. Yet, we can't deny the experience. What does not being physical + experience equal? Non-physical experience! In other words, having an experience of something that doesn't really exist in physical space.

The idea being that if the experience isn't actually happening in what is regarded as 'the real world' then that it is being experienced by the one perceiving it does not 'make it real' in terms of objective observation to do with others.

If others are not seeing it, then it is not real in relation to the experience of THIS universe.

Certainly it can still be considered an experience and the recipient can surmise from that what he will. But it is still not a real experience anyone else had also had in that they too experienced the event as well.

I would say that if you are going to argue that such experiences are real you will also have to stop avoiding the idea that these experiences may well relate to an alternate universe - such as what is commonly known as 'The Astral Realm' and consider this to be at least potentially real.

What you seem to be arguing for is the acceptance of such things as being real without having to explain it any other way than that somehow the mind creates the experience from out of nowhere and that scientists should just accept that it is real just because it is ONLY a product of the mind and for that 'non physical'.

The reason people use the expression 'the mind is a powerful thing' is due to the nature of the experiences that can be had, while simultaniously denying the idea that these experiences somehow come about through an interaction with alternate realities which are themselves real enough - just as real as our own.

With my own experiences, I have this almost instinctual recognition that there is no way that my individual mind could have created those experiences and therefore in looking into other possible reasons for the experiences, I have determined that my 'mind' had a minor part to play in that. It is like my mind is a connected conduit into a vaster mind which is how one is able to experience alternate realities.

Which of course means that I don't buy into the generic scientific explanations, which treat each mind as individual and thus anyone experiencing alternate realities must therefore somehow be creating these for themselves.

Such an explanation just doesn't fit the data of experience, and comes from a position of ignorance.

I am of the opinion that if anything can be experienced it has to be somehow physical, even if it does indeed derive from an alternate reality.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 35 by DrNoGods]

Doc,
I want to offer some questions for thought. Are you an atheist? If so, do you think that is why you don't want to give up your view on materialism? Your belief influences your view on mind and science?

Imagine this

"I agree. You, a heterosexual guy, we'll assume for the sake of argument, could have a dream about making love to Margo Robbie inside a rubber ball in orbit and therefore weightless. But then you wake up and she's not only gone, you know neither she nor you were ever there and was therefore a non-physical, that is imaginary experience--yet the physical evidence that the fantasy existed remains.

I hope this risque example doesn't offend anybody, but it couldn't have happened since I'm sure Margot has never been in orbit....physically."

How is it possible to experience these vivid visual dreams without our senses?

But can't you see how ridiculous your question is?

If you are demanding that we experienced these dreams because we physically "sensed" what the dreams were about, then you are also demanding that what we dreamed about actually physically happened.

I just don't see the reasoning in this type of thinking.

When we imagine things in our mind we aren't "sensing" the things we are imagining in the same way that we sense physical phenomenon. To the contrary, our mind (which is our brain), is creating these thoughts.

So the idea that we need to be physically sensing everything we think about isn't a rational position to take. What argument can you offer to support that we would even need to proposed such a hypothesis?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 36 by Razorsedge]

Are you an atheist?

I am now. But I was raised in a devoutly christian household and never questioned what I was taught about religion until I became an adult, studied the various religions of the world, their histories, their fundamental beliefs, etc. and became convinced that gods of any type most likely do not exist.

If so, do you think that is why you don't want to give up your view on materialism? Your belief influences your view on mind and science?

Fair question, but my materialistic view is based simply on the fact that I don't see why another alternative should be considered without any evidence that it should be considered. The brain is an incredibly complex organ, with trillions of synapses and billions of interacting neurons organized into complicated networks. It is estimated that exascale computing (exaFLOP = 10^18 floating point operations per second) is needed to even begin realistic simulations of the capability of the human brain. That is a tremendous amount of computing power and it is reasonable to expect that such power is adequate to produce consciousness, mental images, etc. as being discussed in this thread.

If there really were just a "few" neurons as another poster stated in this thread, and we observed the incredible capability of the human brain that we do observe, then it may be hard to hold on to a belief that something else wasn't involved. But that isn't the case, and my materialist views have nothing to do with not believing that gods exist. I simply believe that with some 100 trillion synapses, and hundreds of millions of years of brain evolution (~550 million), an organ has resulted that is capable of creating this thing we call consciousness via the complicated (and admittedly not yet fully understood) interactions of its physical components.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 37 by William]

"I am of the opinion that if anything can be experienced it has to be somehow physical, even if it does indeed derive from an alternate reality."

Manifested in the physical?
Is love for a woman all physical, love for a child, love for justice?