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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Sorry for the poor formatting. I've spent ten minutes trying to figure out where I failed. I still think it's readable enough that no confusion should come of it. I'm a poor formatter, and I should feel poor about it

...
1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

They're getting there.

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

Because you have perception. You perceive your mental imagery in much the same way you perceive "real" imagery.

Slate.com[/url]
The psychiatrist Louis Gould wanted to know whether auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia have anything to do with the phenomenon of subvocal speech. Are the experiences that schizophrenics describe as having “voices in their heads� merely the unintentional mutterings of the speech muscles? If so, why would schizophrenics happen to notice their subvocal speech while healthy people do not? Gould designed an experiment using a technique called electromyography, or EMG, which measures muscle activation through time. He gathered a group of schizophrenic and healthy patients and, one by one, recorded their vocal muscle activity. When Gould compared the EMG recordings of schizophrenic patients as they experienced auditory hallucinations to those of nonhallucinating patients, he found that, when the patients were hearing voices, their EMG recordings showed greater vocal muscle activation. This result meant that when the schizophrenics were hearing voices in their heads, their vocal muscles were contracting—they were engaging in subvocal speech.

Schizophrenics are also shown to have active centers related to hearing when they're hallucinating...

Psychology Today[/url]
Interestingly enough, the same brain areas that activate when people hear real noise also light up in schizophrenics during hallucinatory episodes. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans, several studies have found increased activation in Broca’s area (link is external) (a language processing region) and in the primary auditory cortex (link is external) in schizophrenics as they “hear� voices that aren’t real.

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.

Conclusions?

Evidence indicates "mental imagery" works in the physical parts of the brain.

[AgnosticBoy]

1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

They're getting there.

Lets get you up to speed. The study you linked to was addressed on pg. 1 of this thread. At best, these studies involve indirect observation with no guarantee that we'll ever get to direct observation due to the nature of the phenomenon ( subjective and /or non-physical quality of mental images). I've already presented evidence of some leading thinkers who are shifting away from the traditional materialist approach.

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

Because you have perception. You perceive your mental imagery in much the same way you perceive "real" imagery.

Slate.com[/url]
The psychiatrist Louis Gould wanted to know whether auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia have anything to do with the phenomenon of subvocal speech. Are the experiences that schizophrenics describe as having “voices in their heads� merely the unintentional mutterings of the speech muscles? If so, why would schizophrenics happen to notice their subvocal speech while healthy people do not? Gould designed an experiment using a technique called electromyography, or EMG, which measures muscle activation through time. He gathered a group of schizophrenic and healthy patients and, one by one, recorded their vocal muscle activity. When Gould compared the EMG recordings of schizophrenic patients as they experienced auditory hallucinations to those of nonhallucinating patients, he found that, when the patients were hearing voices, their EMG recordings showed greater vocal muscle activation. This result meant that when the schizophrenics were hearing voices in their heads, their vocal muscles were contracting—they were engaging in subvocal speech.

I'm not sure if you've read about 'subvocal speech' itself or 'auditory mental imagery' overall. The article you linked to involved some audible speech, but subvocal speech can also occur without sound in which case it's picked up measuring the nerve signals that tell your throat and tongue to form words. The latter type is what NASA is working on (read here) and the former (involving an audible sound) is what your article refers to.

So clearly your article would not be claiming that all experiences of inner voices are a matter of "hearing" your voice since subvocal speech can occur without sound. Just think about when you read something silently, or when you dream about talking with a relative.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 42:

Lets get you up to speed.

Let's get YOU up to speed!

NOTHING you present refutes the validity of the data I present.

NOTHING!

At best, these studies involve indirect observation with no guarantee that we'll ever get to direct observation due to the nature of the phenomena ( subjective and /or non-physical quality of mental images).

Let's get YOU up to speed!

Because it is, observing something is, in fact, observing something.

Schizophrenia has been shown, soundly, scientifically to involve physical matter - the brain.

I've already presented evidence of some leading thinkers who are shifting away from the traditional materialist approach.

Let's get YOU up to speed!

Asserting something is not showing that assertion is accurate, true, or factual.

Asserting that "leading thinkers" have them an opinion is solely responsible for the assertion of their opinion, and not the facts thereof.

Human brains do 'em the stuff it is human brains do.

That you and other "leading thinkers" might disagree has absolutely no bearing on that fact.

I'm not sure if you've read about 'subvocal speech' itself or 'auditory mental imagery' overall. The article you linked to involved some audible speech, but subvocal speech can also occur without sound in which case it's picked up measuring the nerve signals that tell your throat and tongue to form words. The latter type is what NASA is working on (read here) and the former (involving an audible sound) is what your article refers to.

Let's get YOU up to speed!

I've read much, much more'n a simple link might expose. I suffer the condition I speak of. I'm in the particular class of folks aware of their own insanity.

And nothing you say here refutes my contention that auditory and visual hallucinations have a physical component that expresses or presents as "mental imagery".

So clearly your article would not be claiming that all experiences of inner voices are a matter of "hearing" your voice since subvocal speech can occur without sound. Just think about when you read something silently, or when you dream about talking with a relative.

Let's get YOU up to speed!

I've presented confirmatory data for my contentions. Such data indicates with some certainty that hallucinations have 'em them a physical component! Whether through "subvocal speech", or merely the firing of synapses. The bottom line is that we can detect that such "mental imagery" is confined to the brain, confined to the physical.

If necessary, we might can do us a transmission swap that'll get you up to speed

[AgnosticBoy]

At best, these studies involve indirect observation with no guarantee that we'll ever get to direct observation due to the nature of the phenomena ( subjective and /or non-physical quality of mental images).

Let's get YOU up to speed!

Because it is, observing something is, in fact, observing something.

Schizophrenia has been shown, soundly, scientifically to involve physical matter - the brain.

You're giving a strawman argument. No one here has claimed that hallucinations do not involve the brain.

I've already presented evidence of some leading thinkers who are shifting away from the traditional materialist approach.

Let's get YOU up to speed!

Asserting something is not showing that assertion is accurate, true, or factual.

Asserting that "leading thinkers" have them an opinion is solely responsible for the assertion of their opinion, and not the facts thereof.

Human brains do 'em the stuff it is human brains do.

That you and other "leading thinkers" might disagree has absolutely no bearing on that fact.

It is also your opinion that scientists will discover a physical explanation for mental imagery. It's not a fact that they have (based on your future expectations) or that they will be successful.

I'm not sure if you've read about 'subvocal speech' itself or 'auditory mental imagery' overall. The article you linked to involved some audible speech, but subvocal speech can also occur without sound in which case it's picked up measuring the nerve signals that tell your throat and tongue to form words. The latter type is what NASA is working on (read here) and the former (involving an audible sound) is what your article refers to.

And nothing you say here refutes my contention that auditory and visual hallucinations have a physical component that expresses or presents as "mental imagery".

I've presented confirmatory data for my contentions. Such data indicates with some certainty that hallucinations have 'em them a physical component! Whether through "subvocal speech", or merely the firing of synapses. The bottom line is that we can detect that such "mental imagery" is confined to the brain, confined to the physical.

Again, no one here has claimed that hallucinations do not involve the brain. The brain being involved does not explain how and why it occurs. Secondly, it does not explain WHAT (as in what physical form or structure) the subjective experience itself is. So far, it seems you might be lacking in understanding of what the hard problem of consciousness involves.

In the case of auditory hallucinations, you pointed to a Slate article that says the hallucinations of schizos were the perception of "mutterings" - mutterings which were audible. Logically-speaking, your article does not apply to subvocal speech that does not involve audible mutterings and that's because there is no "sound" and therefore nothing for the ears to pick up.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 44:

You're giving a strawman argument. No one here has claimed that hallucinations do not involve the brain.

I post to ensure a fuller, or better understanding, and do not use tricks such as "strawman" or other sorts of fallacious arguments. If I'm somehow afoul of the OP, please contact a moderator, and stop attempting to impugn my integrity.

I'm asserting that all "mental imagery" (per the OP) occurs within the brain, as a product of otherwise natural processes. I do so to thwart the implication that may arise, of a god or gods being involved (what with this being a religious themed debate site). I feel it's important to understand that some who read these posts might think that's what's being proposed (though OP doesn't overtly or even tangentially say such). I'm just trying to head that off so folks don't get the idea that it's God a-puttin' all them pictures and thoughts and sounds in their heads.

It is also your opinion that scientists will discover a physical explanation for mental imagery. It's not a fact that they have (based on your future expectations) or that they will be successful.

No.

Scientists have already found the explanation for mental imagery - a firing of the synapses that produces the effect of sights or sounds that are not actually being perceived by the eyes or ears. Granted, they've not found a reliable way to cure folks of hallucinations, but they know where and why they occur.

Secondly, it does not explain WHAT (as in what physical form or structure) the subjective experience itself is. So far, it seems you might be lacking in understanding of what the hard problem of consciousness involves.

I'm fully aware of what consciousness involves, and problems associated with it. Up to and including the "hard problem of consciousness".

That you don't understand my understanding is no reason for you to accuse me of a lack of understanding.

If you'll simply ask for clarifications, and stop trying to accuse me of lacking knowledge of something, maybe you'll be "up to speed" on my knowledge a whole lot quicker.


Do you really think accusing folks of nefarity and ignorance is sound debate?

Again, no one here has claimed that hallucinations do not involve the brain. The brain being involved does not explain how and why it occurs.

Electro-chemical processes.

That's it. That's the smoking gun right there.

Even in schizophrenics, there are electro-chemical processes that cause the neurons and the synapses and the brain to do what all it is they all do, only it is, they might not be doing it at the best time.

Now, there's certainly the issue of how it is I've come to be me a schizophrenic, but there's settled science on my hallucinations being the product of all them neurons and synapsons, and all such as that might fire away when they ain't s'posed to. If that's what you wish to consider, I'm cool with that.

But the facts are in... We know what's happening when these hallucinatory events occur - them neurons...

Secondly, it does not explain WHAT (as in what physical form or structure) the subjective experience itself is.

Please expound.

I'm thinking you might be meaning such as "if it ain't real, then how come there it sits". This is easily explained when we understand that the neurons... even when we done told 'em they can go to Hell for lying same as stealing.

So far, it seems you might be lacking in understanding of what the hard problem of consciousness involves.

Twice now you accuse me of ignorance of a subject you yourself haven't shown you know anything about other'n to call it by name.


I'll kindly thank you to stop calling me ignorant about a subject you've yet to show you know more'n just an ability to call it by name.


Can you debate without accusing me of nefarity and ignorance, or are them the sharpest tools you can produce?

In the case of auditory hallucinations, you pointed to a Slate article that says the hallucinations of schizos were the perception of "mutterings" - mutterings which were audible. Logically-speaking, your article does not apply to subvocal speech that does not involve audible mutterings and that's because there is no "sound" and therefore nothing for the ears to pick up.

That's why I also included the link to the Psychology Today article that shows the firings of the neurapses and the synons, and all such as that.

Alas, evidence indicates you're ignorant of it being there.


But you're right - in normal folks, there's gotta be there at least a gentle wind for some folks to hear. So how proud must I be to know I can hear in the dead vacuum of space? I can even hear stuff that ain't even there to get it heard. My hearing is so good that I can hear stuff that ain't even making a sound! 'Cause it is, I'm a schizophrenic with me some downright unruly synaptoids!



I know I play around and carry on, and kinda troll, but this is a subject dear to my heart, in trying to understand why it is I hear me stuff that not only did it not get said, it didn't even ruffle me my ear hair.


This whole "problem of consciousness" notion is, if only for me, a kinda empty notion. The only problem with conciousness I see, is being it. By being it, we set to fret how come it is how come. That'n there'll rip a whole in the fabric of conciouness every time. But, when we see that we've got us this bio-computater, and that it processes data, only sometimes it does wrong, well how 'bout that.

We see, with compelling evidence, that the brain is not a perfect machine, but a machine that's trying to do its best under some really complicated circumstances. We can see that when folks are hallucinating, there are centers in their brains just a-centerin' away. There's no magic to it. Consciousness is a product of the brain, and if you turn the brain off, you'll shut you down consciousness. Consciousness is bound to the limits, errors, and pride of the brain.

Just like if I stack me up a pile of pancakes, thank ya pretty thing, so now I got me a pile of pancakes, where before, I just had me some pancakes. But if I slip me a waffle in there in that pile, I got me a stack of pancakes asking what the heck the waffle's a-doin' there.


Bio-chemical stuff. The brain trying to process 'em, and come up with some way to make sense of 'em. Only it is, I got me a waffle stacked in there somewhere in my thinkulator.

[AgnosticBoy]

You're giving a strawman argument. No one here has claimed that hallucinations do not involve the brain.

I'm asserting that all "mental imagery" (per the OP) occurs within the brain, as a product of otherwise natural processes. I do so to thwart the implication that may arise, of a god or gods being involved (what with this being a religious themed debate site). I feel it's important to understand that some who read these posts might think that's what's being proposed (though OP doesn't overtly or even tangentially say such). I'm just trying to head that off so folks don't get the idea that it's God a-puttin' all them pictures and thoughts and sounds in their heads.

My skepticism or debate has been towards an absolute form of materialism. It is not about atheism vs. Christianity or any need for or against a god.

With that said, I also believe that mental imagery is a result of natural physical AND non-physical processes.

It is also your opinion that scientists will discover a physical explanation for mental imagery. It's not a fact that they have (based on your future expectations) or that they will be successful.

No.

Scientists have already found the explanation for mental imagery - a firing of the synapses that produces the effect of sights or sounds that are not actually being perceived by the eyes or ears. Granted, they've not found a reliable way to cure folks of hallucinations, but they know where and why they occur.

Your point here is a simple error of confusing correlation with causation (how and why it occur). Secondly, if scientists knew the cause, they still must explain exactly what is the perception, why is it not observed objectively, etc.

You pointed to one study or a Slate magazine article that explains the way schizos perceived their inner voices was via audible mumblings and they weren't aware of that they were audibly mumbling to themselves. But again, how does that explain mental imagery involving NO sound?

Here's from YOUR source Psychology Today:

But more answers lead to more questions. In this case, why are there abnormal activations of auditory- and speech-related brain regions in the absence of sound?

It may have something to do with brain structure: That tiny part of the brain that is so critical to processing auditory information in humans, the primary auditory cortex, is often smaller in schizophrenic individuals.

That doesn't sound like they have it all figured out as you claimed.

So what about the brain scan studies regarding IMAGES and movies in our minds (as opposed to sound)?
Well here again we're relying on correlation because the scientists do not understand how the brain processes causes the subjective experience (perception of images).

Here's what another one of YOUR sources say on the matter:

“Our natural visual experience is like watching a movie,� said Shinji Nishimoto, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral researcher in Gallant’s lab. “In order for this technology to have wide applicability, we must understand how the brain processes these dynamic visual experiences."
...
“We need to know how the brain works in naturalistic conditions,� he said. “For that, we need to first understand how the brain works while we are watching movies.�

Source: http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

And the article points to another website with the actual study and I found this interesting bit in the Q/A section:

It is currently unknown whether processes like dreaming and imagination are realized in the brain in a way that is functionally similar to perception. If they are, then it should be possible to use the techniques developed in this paper to decode brain activity during dreaming or imagination.

Source: http://gallantlab.org/index.php/publica ... t-al-2011/

This doesn't sound like they have it all figured out either. Secondly, their method for "predicting" what image a person is perceiving is based on brain activity that is "associated" (or correlated) with viewing images. As long as that brain activity is consistent for a given perceived image, then scientists don't need to know WHY or HOW the perception occurs. They can figure that out from correlation alone which is the method that they used.

If the researchers had it all figured out then they wouldn't need to rely on correlational methods (mapping out BEFOREHAND which images are associated with brain activity and using that alone to predict other mental images), and instead would demonstrate how it is caused. Not only would they know the cause but it would also require explaining exactly what a mental image is, what is it made of, KNOWING the content of the perception, and being able to directly observe it if it were all physical as you claimed.

Here is some more interesting insight on mental imagery that conflicts with what some have said on this forum:

“Our natural visual experience is like watching a movie,� said Shinji Nishimoto, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral researcher in Gallant’s lab. “In order for this technology to have wide applicability, we must understand how the brain processes these dynamic visual experiences.�

Source: http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

FOrgive me for potentially stating the obvious, but that sounds a lot like having some image that we perceive. Someone told me earlier in the thread that there doesn't need to be anything like an image.

[AgnosticBoy]

Divine Insight
Wasn't it you who dismissed my claim of "images" being perceived in the mind? I recall you saying that no real images need to exist, as if there's nothing to perceive in a sense, and you said this after I made my claim that scientists are not directly observing these IMAGES. Lets go over your claim with logic and empirical evidence:

DI
By contrast, in his Mental Images – A Defence, Hannay (1971) vigorously championed the reality of inner pictures (see also Hannay, 1973, and for a counterargument see Candlish, 1975). But, despite the fact that he had no thought of reinstating imagery to its traditional importance in cognitive and semantic theory, Hannay clearly saw himself (in 1971) as a lonely dissenter, a voice crying in the wilderness against philosophy's virtually monolithic iconophobic consensus. In the subsequent decades that consensus has been fractured, but by no means shattered, by developments in cognitive psychology and cognitive science (discussed below). In particular, in the wake of Kosslyn's (1980, 1994) seminal work on the cognitive psychology of imagery, a growing number of philosophers are now ready to defend the reality of mental pictures, and show no sign whatsoever of feeling embattled (e.g., von Eckardt, 1988, 1993; Tye, 1988, 1991; Mortensen, 1989; Brann, 1991; Cohen, 1996; Rollins, 2001). Many other philosophers, even if not entirely convinced about pictures, now take a serious interest in the cognitive science of imagery.

So why is it crazy to believe that it's possible to have images in our mind?


Lets get to the science: Are mental images pictorial, symbolic, or do they exist in multiple formats?

How do we humans represent information internally?
...
For several decades, a debate about the nature of mental representation has raged, spanning many fields: notably, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, philosophy, and neuroscience.
...
The initial debate focused on just two formats: propositional vs. depictive.
...

One side of the mental representation debate argued that all information is stored in a symbolic, language-like, descriptive format, regardless of the content. There is no dispute that humans sometimes rely on language-like “propositional� representations; such propositional representations convey the gist of what is expressed in a verbal statement. The dispute is whether all mental representations rely on such an internal monolog.
...
Specifically, the debate was about whether, in addition to a descriptive format of the sort used in language[just explained in the previous paragraph], information can be stored in a depictive, pictorial format. In a depiction, each part of the representation corresponds to a part of the represented object such that the distances among the parts in the representation correspond to the actual distances among the parts. Thus, a depiction requires a functional space (e.g., an actual page or XY coordinate space).
...
Another camp has argued that information can be stored in numerous different formats.
...
We argue here that recent empirical findings have resolved this debate. Although the researchers may not have always conceived of their results in this context, recent empirical evidence now strongly supports the claim that we humans can represent information in multiple ways, and that such representations can be used flexibly in working memory or during mental imagery. This conclusion opens the next chapter for empirical research, namely, characterizing all of the different possible formats of mental representation, as well as discovering when and how they are used during cognition.

The limitations of philosophy:

Many philosophers have argued that depictive mental images play a key role in mental representation, but many others have argued to the contrary (reviewed in ref. 1). Being limited to logical analysis and synthesis, philosophers could not resolve the issue.

The evidence for perceived IMAGES:

There is now strong evidence that when one visualizes (i.e., forms a mental image of) how something looks in darkness or with eyes closed, there is activity in area V1 (7 ⇓ ⇓ –10). Because area V1 is depictive, these findings alone suggest that visual mental images involve depictive representations. However, the evidence from recent neuroimaging goes further: Researchers have been able to “read� or “decode� a mental image from patterns of activation in area V1. That is, just based on brain activity, researchers can learn what an individual is visualizing

[/b]

[JoeyKnothead]

From [url="viewtopic.php?t=33946&start=45]Post 46[/url]:

Sorry for the delay...

My skepticism or debate has been towards an absolute form of materialism. It is not about atheism vs. Christianity or any need for or against a god.

Cool.

With that said, I also believe that mental imagery is a result of natural physical AND non-physical processes.

Your beliefs are immaterial to the facts.

And the facts is, you've not presented you the first argument that non-physical processes are involved here.

The facts show that you've accused me of ignorance on this topic, only don't it beat all, your ignorance is exposed in your not defending your "non-physical" argument.

Who's more "ignorant" (your term), the one accusing folks of ignorance, or the one who can't show that'n there's "ignorant" to begin with?

Where here have you ever even attempted to show that "non-physical" processes are involved in any of this?

To assert a claim is not to show such claim is valid, applicable, or any such as that.

You've done nothing but to argue that I'm "ignorant" of the stuff it is, you've failed to show is!

Your point here is a simple error of confusing correlation with causation (how and why it occur). Secondly, if scientists knew the cause, they still must explain exactly what is the perception, why is it not observed objectively, etc.

Nobody "must" show'em them a gol-danged thing, where it is, you assert the non-physical is involved in our topic here.

Don't it beat all, you accuse folks of not showin' 'em nothing, and there you sit, you've done nothing to defend your contention that "non-physical" stuff's involved in it.


Do you even understand the concept of error?


You certainly don't present as understanding the concept of "I'm just gonna declare me some of this stuff ain't it physical, only it is, I ain't gonna do me nothing to show it"? With that in mind, I assert, aver, and avow, that it's you that's the "ignorant" (your term) here, and not me.

But yeah, I'm ignorant of you ever, ever showing the non-physical is involved in these matters.

You pointed to one study or a Slate magazine article that explains the way schizos perceived their inner voices was via audible mumblings and they weren't aware of that they were audibly mumbling to themselves. But again, how does that explain mental imagery involving NO sound?

'Cause it is, I showed in the Psychology Today article, that where them "hearers hear" 'em something, and how it is, brain scans show active involvement in it.

Here's from YOUR source Psychology Today:

But more answers lead to more questions. In this case, why are there abnormal activations of auditory- and speech-related brain regions in the absence of sound?

It may have something to do with brain structure: That tiny part of the brain that is so critical to processing auditory information in humans, the primary auditory cortex, is often smaller in schizophrenic individuals.

Source: http://gallantlab.org/index.php/publica ... t-al-2011/

Notice, they fret why it is the brain think's there's some sound a-carryin' on, in the absence of airwaves that'd produce it.

And what structures of the brain's involved in it.

Physical, material.

That doesn't sound like they have it all figured out as you claimed.

Certainly, they can't figure 'em out how come it is the physical, material brain might come to it some faulty conclusions.

They never, not once, refer to the "non-physical" to explain it.


But boy howdy, how proud are we to know that here you are, you're a-fixin' to explain how it is, it's the non-physical a-causin' it!

This doesn't sound like they have it all figured out either. Secondly, their method for "predicting" what image a person is perceiving is based on brain activity that is "associated" (or correlated) with viewing images. As long as that brain activity is consistent for a given perceived image, then scientists don't need to know WHY or HOW the perception occurs. They can figure that out from correlation alone which is the method that they used.

Yet not the first'n of 'em them of it, declare the non-physical is involved.


Go ahead, educate us all who suffer us this "ignorance" (your term).


Explain how the non-physical's involved.


Or hush.

If the researchers had it all figured out then they wouldn't need to rely on correlational methods (mapping out BEFOREHAND which images are associated with brain activity and using that alone to predict other mental images), and instead would demonstrate how it is caused. Not only would they know the cause but it would also require explaining exactly what a mental image is, what is it made of, KNOWING the content of the perception, and being able to directly observe it if it were all physical as you claimed.

Yet here you sit, you ain't uttered you the first explanation of how the non-physical's the cause of anything.

That some folks can't explain 'em how it is the physical, material brain has it some problems with it being all physical and material and all, doesn't support your contention that the non-physical has it a part in it.

Here is some more interesting insight on mental imagery that conflicts with what some have said on this forum:

“Our natural visual experience is like watching a movie,� said Shinji Nishimoto, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral researcher in Gallant’s lab. “In order for this technology to have wide applicability, we must understand how the brain processes these dynamic visual experiences.�

Source: http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

It'd be nice to understand us how it is, the physical, material brain does what it is, the physical, material does what it does, when it is, it does what it does do.

Until here comes good ol' AgnosticBoy, to show us all how it is, the non-physical, the non-material done did it!

FOrgive me for potentially stating the obvious, but that sounds a lot like having some image that we perceive. Someone told me earlier in the thread that there doesn't need to be anything like an image.

As I hope you'll forgive me for stating that obviously your accusing me of "ignorance" is a better reflection of your own!

I can't help what other posters post. But yeah, if that brings you comfort, well how 'bout that!

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 47 by JoeyKnothead]

I did not open this thread to discuss my view but rather to address the materialist viewpoint. If you really want to see my view in action, then I'll refer you to my thread called Emergent Dualism (best summed up in the 8th post). It was voted the best topic in 2017. I don't claim that the view solves the mind/body problem, but I do view it as being very probable, especially given all of the weaknesses that materialist view has.

Getting back to this thread, all I've gotten from materialists is a promissory note that scientists will one day figure it all out and show that every part of it is physical. Yet, I've shown that scientists are defecting from the traditional materialist viewpoint when they no longer view consciousness as being a property of atoms, molecules, neurons, etc. That takes away a level of the physical that many "assumed" could account for everything but yet they've been failing to show how this accounts for consciousness and mental imagery. The less you're able to reduce consciousness to, then the less physical (or the more subjective/non-physical) it becomes. Who will be left to fulfill the materialist promise when more scientists start defecting one-by-one?

I'll leave you with this good insight:

However, there is a big difference between stating that the mind is a product of the brain and claiming that the mind is nothing more than brain activity. This second position is called eliminative reductionism. Neuroscientists who take this stance believe that eventually our understanding of the brain will be so complete that all other psychological theories will become superfluous.�

“Such a scenario may sound scary, but Schwartz and colleagues are skeptical that it will ever come to pass. Although they agree that the brain produces the mind, they don’t think that mind can be reduced to brain. This is because of a phenomenon known as emergence, which is widely observed throughout the physical world.�

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... psychology

This will really be my last post here. I'll start another thread in the near future.