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.

[AgnosticBoy]

For instance, you're not addressing my evidence - why is it wrong, why is it right, what specifically are the strong and weak points, etc.

In the last post, you argued for a independently functioning consciousness.
Please supply the evidence for us to evaluate that would suggest such a thing.
Things from the last post that are currently not considered as evidence:
- there are conditions where the brain is functioning at a minimal or impaired level (near-death or beyond even) where it shouldn't have capacity for vivid experience, and lots of people have come back out of those conditions report that they were still able to have vivid experiences.
..............
Where is the evidence for some independent functioning consciousness though?

That last viewpoint that you listed as not being evidence is evidence and part of an inductive argument that relies on a trend and concludes with where we are likely headed. When researchers say that this and that is needed for consciousness, and then one by one, we find that it's not needed, then sooner or later they're going to run out of things in the brain to say that is needed. Unless they can convince you that just having any type of brain activity, even just one neuron firing, is enough for conscious experience.

More specifically towards your request, there are veridical OBEs or NDEs that show consciousness going beyond not just brain but even the body. Best example is the NDE of Pam Reynolds as reported by several sources, like the NPR. I like her case because we can establish some timeline as to when she had her OBE based on what she experienced and the stage/condition she was in her medical procedure. She was seeing and hearing things that were said during a time when she was put under heavy anesthetics and had her ears plugged with sound vibrations coming from each plug.

I'll skip to the relevant parts... but basically she had a brain aneurysm that needed to be operated on...

An MRI revealed an aneurysm on her brain stem. It was already leaking, a ticking time bomb. Her doctor in Atlanta said her best hope was a young brain surgeon at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Arizona named Robert Spetzler.

"The aneurysm was very large, which meant the risk of rupture was also very large," Spetzler says. "And it was in a location where the only way to really give her the very best odds of fixing it required what we call 'cardiac standstill.' "

It was a daring operation: Chilling her body, draining the blood out of her head like oil from a car engine, snipping the aneurysm and then bringing her back from the edge of death."She is as deeply comatose as you can be and still be alive," Spetzler observes.

When the operation began, the surgeons taped shut Reynolds' eyes and put molded speakers in her ears. The ear speakers, which made clicking sounds as loud as a jet plane taking off, allowed the surgeons to measure her brain stem activity and let them know when they could drain her blood.

Her perception after already being sedated and having ears plugged:

Reynolds recalls. "It was a natural D, and as the sound continued — I don't know how to explain this, other than to go ahead and say it — I popped up out the top of my head."

She says she found herself looking down at the operating table. She says she could see 20 people around the table and hear what sounded like a dentist's drill. She looked at the instrument in the surgeon's hand.

"It was an odd-looking thing," she says. "It looked like the handle on my electric toothbrush."

Reynolds observed the Midas Rex bone saw the surgeons used to cut open her head, the drill bits, and the case, which looked like the one where her father kept his socket wrenches. Then she noticed a surgeon at her left groin.

Source: All excerpts are from the NPR

Now for the record, she did go from having an ordinary OBE to an NDE, but I don't include the transcendental NDE stuff because it's hard to say when that occurred. But I would say that by the time they started drilling through her skull and checking her femoral arteries, which she said she witnessed, she would've already been well sedated and those ear plugs would've made it difficult to hear anything.

All it takes to show that consciousness is not physical like all the other things in the Universe is evidence. A theory goes beyond just evidence. The Sun exists since we have evidence (we all see it), and that's the case even if we couldn't explain the how and why (theory).

Again, consciousness is a state of being aware. We agree that this state of being aware it is not physical. You seem to agree about this 'state of mind', but want to argue for it being independent of a functioning brain. I note that drugs and damage to our brains does in fact affect our awareness. What do you note that would suggest that our awareness comes from some independent thing yet to be identified?

REfer above. I mean even without direct evidence of an independent consciousness, we can still gather where the evidence seems to be pointing. Researchers are already talking about consciousness in other mediums, as well, like in Ai. And really, these are just cases involving being able to express consciousness. There's no saying what else could be conscious if we or "it" has no way to express it, just as we don't even know a lot of times if a patient in a vegetative state is conscious.

Being just a medium, could also lend support for other things being conscious, like Ai. It's less restrictive, makes less assumptions, etc.

Our brains are such a medium, but that is my point. Only our brains are the medium that seem to be involved. You have alluded to something independent and I would like to know more about this thing.
me·di·um
/ˈmēdēəm/
noun
the intervening substance through which impressions are conveyed to the senses

I chose the word "medium" because it doesn't imply being the only place for something like other descriptors would imply such as "being the cause" or "brain generates consciousness". For instance, just because information can be transmitted through radio, phone, and computer (that's THREE mediums) doesn't mean information originated there or is restricted to each one.

But then there are these internal experiences or even a world some would say, filled with mental objects and behaviors that tend to have the same effects on the brain/body as you would doing the actual physical act (e.g. wet dreams). So I think it's more than just a process.

Hallucinations are not actually real, but they are very real for the person experiencing them. Everything about hallucinations seem to take place in our brains, the very thing that supplies our awareness/consiousness. Are you suggesting that there is or must be something independent of our brains being involved?

Here you said "supply" our consciousness. It's more reasonable to say it's a medium or a means for our consciousness to express itself.

Copy/paste: Then you are correct as consciousness isn't physical because it is a state of being aware.

Well it's more than just a state of awareness.

I currently reject this for definition reasons:
con·scious·ness
/ˈkänSHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

There's a whole class of things that is it aware of that we would also say is nonphysical. Should we say that a hallucination is just a state of awareness? I think it involves more than that unless you also want include visual experiences (including the objects of the experience, the person or thing being perceived and interacted with) as being consciousness.

Us being aware seems to stem from our functioning brains, but I'm open to whatever else you are suggesting that provides us with this awareness that isn't the brain.

That's just correlation.

You make it sound like it is a negative. It isn't.
While correlation doesn't imply causation, understanding correlation can be valuable for identifying patterns, making predictions, and developing hypotheses. Much like the hypothesis that consciousness stems from a functioning brain and noting how drugs and/or damage to our brains does in fact affect our consciousness.

Very true. I shouldn't have undermined that. In fact, correlation may lead us to an explanation showing causation.

Again, there are several lines of evidence I can go off of, starting with the most simple which is that subjective experience can not be observed objectively (e.g. hallucinations, mental imagery, etc).

Let me grant this for the purpose of debate.
Therefore what?

Elsewhere I think you questioned how does being nonphysical equate to not being part of the brain. I might have accidentally deleted it.

I can say that being nonphysical by itself doesn't remove the brain from the picture. I've considered explanations for such differences as being part of some type of emergent phenomenon.
Google Ai result from search: Strong emergence

Strong emergence is a philosophical concept suggesting that certain properties of a complex system are not simply a result of the sum of its parts and their interactions, but rather arise as something fundamentally new that cannot be predicted or reduced to the basic elements. In other words, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and some emergent phenomena may be irreducible to the lowest level of description.

But being nonphysical is also consistent with being able to operate independently which is of course what many religions and spiritual views explain. But I'm not just suggesting, and instead I'm presenting evidence and logic for both non-physicality and non-dependence.

[A Freeman]

For parts 2 & 3, please click here.

[A Freeman]

For Parts 1 & 3, please click here.

[A Freeman]

For Parts 1 & 2, please click here.

[A Freeman]

A Lesson On Irrational Fear

[media]https://www.brighteon.com/315a43bb-113a ... 21391b3dd4[/media]

Source link

The four brief videos shared in this post and the three previous posts, are directly related to mental imagery as non-physical perception, i.e. "in the mind's eye". The third video includes expert testimony from psychologists about the ego/"self" depicted in the included movie clips, and which is spoken about in detail in Scripture.

[Clownboat]

Please supply the evidence for us to evaluate that would suggest such a thing.

- there are conditions where the brain is functioning at a minimal or impaired level (near-death or beyond even) where it shouldn't have capacity for vivid experience, and lots of people have come back out of those conditions report that they were still able to have vivid experiences.

Thank you for this claim. Do you have any evidence for us to evaluate something independent from the brain that is supplying consciousness?

More specifically towards your request, there are veridical OBEs or NDEs that show consciousness going beyond not just brain but even the body.

In these events, we literally have a dying brain... and our consciousness is affected, like it would be if consciousness emerges from our functioning brains. Damage the brain, or affect it with drugs or get it to a point of being near death and guess what, our consciousness is affected. This in fact does not show consciousness going beyond just the brain.

Best example is the NDE of Pam Reynolds as reported by several sources, like the NPR. I like her case because we can establish some timeline as to when she had her OBE based on what she experienced and the stage/condition she was in her medical procedure. She was seeing and hearing things that were said during a time when she was put under heavy anesthetics and had her ears plugged with sound vibrations coming from each plug.

I don't know this women, but I know about anesthesia awareness. Can you tell me if her brains was in any sort of an altered state when this took place? Was her brain normal or not normal when this happened? I argue after all that affecting our brain does in fact affect our consciousness and isn't that what we see here?

It was a daring operation: Chilling her body, draining the blood out of her head like oil from a car engine, snipping the aneurysm and then bringing her back from the edge of death."She is as deeply comatose as you can be and still be alive," Spetzler observes.

I would argue that her brain was greatly affected by this.

<snipped further details as they don't lead to any conclusions>

REfer above. I mean even without direct evidence of an independent consciousness, we can still gather where the evidence seems to be pointing.

Please be specific and inform us as to where the evidence points and keep in mind that there was a time that we didn't understand the weather and attributed that falsely until we got the required understanding.

I'm open to there being something independent and would find that to be very neat, but a lack of fully understanding consciousness does not mean we should invent alternatives that you seemingly cannot tells us anything about except for claiming this 'thing' is independent of our brains. The claim that there is something independent of our brains only leads to more questions, which doesn't make it a very satisfying explanations if we are being honest.

Researchers are already talking about consciousness in other mediums, as well, like in Ai.

Please provide whatever it is that are talking about that would lead us to believe that there is something independent to our brains causing consciousness.

There's no saying what else could be conscious if we or "it" has no way to express it,

There is... Animals. Animals are conscious. Do you think they also have something independent from their brains like you think humans do?

For instance, just because information can be transmitted through radio, phone, and computer (that's THREE mediums) doesn't mean information originated there or is restricted to each one.

Who here has argued such a thing?

Here you said "supply" our consciousness. It's more reasonable to say it's a medium or a means for our consciousness to express itself.

I disagree because everything that we are aware of is because of what takes place in our brains. The things that 'supply' our consciousness (the things we see, feel, smell and are aware of) are 100% taking place in our brains. You claim there is something independent and I think that would be cool, but you fail to tell us anything about this thing. This 'thing' is 'nothing' currently.

I think it involves more than that unless you also want include visual experiences (including the objects of the experience, the person or thing being perceived and interacted with) as being consciousness.

Visual experiences are not conscious/aware, but what we see, smell, taste, touch, etc. does provide us with what we are aware of and I note that 100% of this takes place in our brains. Affecting our brains can also affects what we see, taste, touch, etc...
Makes me wonder if a dying brain might at times experience some odd things.

Very true. I shouldn't have undermined that. In fact, correlation may lead us to an explanation showing causation.

Will you get around to informing me what this independent thing from our brains is and why you think it supplies us with our ability to be aware of our surroundings?
If you are aware of a flower near you, I note that the brain is where we process seeing it, smelling it and feeling it. Where does something independent of the brain come into the picture?

[AgnosticBoy]

More specifically towards your request, there are veridical OBEs or NDEs that show consciousness going beyond not just brain but even the body.

In these events, we literally have a dying brain... and our consciousness is affected, like it would be if consciousness emerges from our functioning brains. Damage the brain, or affect it with drugs or get it to a point of being near death and guess what, our consciousness is affected. This in fact does not show consciousness going beyond just the brain.

Yes, of course our consciousness is affected. We both agree that consciousness expresses itself through the body/brain.

The only difference is that I view the brain as a medium for consciousness (as opposed to being inseparably tied to or attached). For instance, if my CPU is damaged, then I would expect it to have problems processing and rendering information. That doesn't mean the information and files are damaged as I could just simply pull them up on another medium (computer, smartphone, etc). In the same way, if the brain is impaired, you still have consciousness but the person just can't express it like they used to (or at least not to other people unless they recover) but they are experiencing nonetheless.

Best example is the NDE of Pam Reynolds as reported by several sources, like the NPR. I like her case because we can establish some timeline as to when she had her OBE based on what she experienced and the stage/condition she was in her medical procedure. She was seeing and hearing things that were said during a time when she was put under heavy anesthetics and had her ears plugged with sound vibrations coming from each plug.

I don't know this women, but I know about anesthesia awareness. Can you tell me if her brains was in any sort of an altered state when this took place? Was her brain normal or not normal when this happened? I argue after all that affecting our brain does in fact affect our consciousness and isn't that what we see here?

Anesthesia awareness is not a valid explanation because even if she was aware she still would not be able to see and hear. The eyes were taped shut and her ears were plugged up with ear buds that were generating sound.

When the operation began, the surgeons taped shut Reynolds' eyes and put molded speakers in her ears. The ear speakers, which made clicking sounds as loud as a jet plane taking off

Source: NPR

It was a daring operation: Chilling her body, draining the blood out of her head like oil from a car engine, snipping the aneurysm and then bringing her back from the edge of death."She is as deeply comatose as you can be and still be alive," Spetzler observes.

I would argue that her brain was greatly affected by this.

<snipped further details as they don't lead to any conclusions>

I addressed your point here at the open of this post.

REfer above. I mean even without direct evidence of an independent consciousness, we can still gather where the evidence seems to be pointing.

Please be specific and inform us as to where the evidence points and keep in mind that there was a time that we didn't understand the weather and attributed that falsely until we got the required understanding.

There is evidence that consciousness is not physical like the brain. I've also presented evidence showing that some awareness persists even when brain and senses are impaired. I added "senses" to the equation because while the brain is still functioning (which some could use to explain why consciousness is still there e.g. anesthesia awareness), but you also need functioning sensory organs to be aware of the outside environment.

I'm open to there being something independent and would find that to be very neat, but a lack of fully understanding consciousness does not mean we should invent alternatives that you seemingly cannot tells us anything about except for claiming this 'thing' is independent of our brains. The claim that there is something independent of our brains only leads to more questions, which doesn't make it a very satisfying explanations if we are being honest.

Do you believe consciousness can exist in something other than a brain? Like in computers, Ai, etc? If so, then that would mean that consciousness can function outside brains. Although I also claim that consciousness can exist even without a physical medium as well, but it likely just wouldn't be able to express itself to us or in any physical/measurable way.

There's no saying what else could be conscious if we or "it" has no way to express it,

There is... Animals. Animals are conscious. Do you think they also have something independent from their brains like you think humans do?

How do we know animals are conscious? We go based on their response or behaviors. My point is that the same can't be said for things or even living people (patient's in coma) who aren't able to respond in any way.

For instance, just because information can be transmitted through radio, phone, and computer (that's THREE mediums) doesn't mean information originated there or is restricted to each one.

Who here has argued such a thing?

You and many other materialists. That is why I thought you were questioning my view of consciousness functioning independent of the brain.

Here you said "supply" our consciousness. It's more reasonable to say it's a medium or a means for our consciousness to express itself.

I disagree because everything that we are aware of is because of what takes place in our brains. The things that 'supply' our consciousness (the things we see, feel, smell and are aware of) are 100% taking place in our brains. You claim there is something independent and I think that would be cool, but you fail to tell us anything about this thing. This 'thing' is 'nothing' currently.

This does not address my point. We both agree that the brain processes our consciousness, but what I'm getting at is if it's the only medium that can do that. Can consciousness be processed in any way shape or form through something other than the brain? Can it even function without a medium at all? I'd say yes to both.

Being expressed in another medium is something researchers are looking for in Ai, and seeing if it could ever get to a point where it has some sense of self and be able to express it. Otherwise, it's seemingly already "thinking". As for the latter question, the evidence for that is having awareness while brain and senses are impaired which is what happened in Pam Reynold's case. Even while not being brain dead at one point, but how did her brain receive outside sensory information if her senses were impaired? I should also say there was a point where she didn't have brain activity (no measurable EEG), but we can't tie any of her experience to that point because her recalled details were about a point of time before the brain stopped, and it's also because her experience transitioned into some transcendental stuff, like going to another place and seeing her dead grandmother.

I think it involves more than that unless you also want include visual experiences (including the objects of the experience, the person or thing being perceived and interacted with) as being consciousness.

Visual experiences are not conscious/aware, but what we see, smell, taste, touch, etc. does provide us with what we are aware of and I note that 100% of this takes place in our brains.

I was referring to subjective experiences of our mind, like the stuff we see, hear, and touch in our minds (in a dream for instance). We have neural correlation for that in the brain via neural activity, but I can't say that the experience is actually in the brain if we can't observe it. As an alternative, we can even say it occurs in the brain, but that doesn't mean it can't also occur in another medium or without a medium. Refer to my previous response. 

Affecting our brains can also affects what we see, taste, touch, etc...
Makes me wonder if a dying brain might at times experience some odd things.

Yes, there is certainly interaction between the two. That doesn't mean that consciousness is caused by or restricted to brain, just as information in a computer is not caused by or restricted to one computer. There is no "theory" for the materialistic view that consciousness is a product of the brain. There's just correlation, and whatever evidence you've brought up so far can just as easily be explained as the brain being just a "medium" for consciousness - one of many potential mediums. I've also presented evidence showing exactly that.

[AgnosticBoy]

Guess who heard this song while under general anesthesia and with medical ear buds on that generate clicking sounds? ("Hotel California")

[Clownboat]

Yes, of course our consciousness is affected. We both agree that consciousness expresses itself through the body/brain.

Great! So why are you arguing for something independent from the brain?
Is it because you want to?
Or, do you have reasoning you are waiting for just the right time to provide us?

<Snipped you comparing the brain to a computer because it isn't one and your thoughts suggest nothing best I can tell>

Anesthesia awareness is not a valid explanation because even if she was aware she still would not be able to see and hear. The eyes were taped shut and her ears were plugged up with ear buds that were generating sound.

I hear you. Please explain how she saw and heard what you claim she saw and heard, while in this state where her brain was greatly affected, which we both happen to agree is where consciousness expresses. Then please explain to us as to why this doesn't happen frequently as I would find this answer to be very important.

There is evidence that consciousness is not physical like the brain.

Please point me to one person here, just one, that argues that consciousness is physical. One please.

I've also presented evidence showing that some awareness persists even when brain and senses are impaired.

Please point me to one person here, just one, that argues that awareness cannot persist in some form when the brain and senses are impaired. One please.

Do you believe consciousness can exist in something other than a brain? Like in computers, Ai, etc?

No, computers are not aware. They can be programmed to mimic some aspects of human cognition, they are not actually aware of the world though.

If so, then that would mean that consciousness can function outside brains.

Consciousness is ONLY observed to take place in the brains of animals and has never been observed to function outside of brains. I'm open to being shown anything other than an animal that is conscious if you feel there is such a thing.

Although I also claim that consciousness can exist even without a physical medium as well

I know, but you wont tell me where it can exist (outside of our brains where we do become aware). Consciousness seems to emerge from our functioning brains. You reject this while not offering an alternative explanation even though I continue to ask.

How do we know animals are conscious?

Here are 11 examples of animal consciousness throughout the animal kingdom.
https://www.fourpawsusa.org/our-stories ... sciousness

My point is that the same can't be said for things or even living people (patient's in coma) who aren't able to respond in any way.

Who here is arguing that patients that are in coma are conscious! They are not.
co·ma1
/ˈkōmə/
noun
a state of deep unconsciousness that lasts for a prolonged or indefinite period, caused especially by severe injury or illness.

Drugs and a good choke hold I note both affect the brain and can render a person unconscious. I'm just not seeing anything outside our brains as being involved.

This does not address my point. We both agree that the brain processes our consciousness, but what I'm getting at is if it's the only medium that can do that. Can consciousness be processed in any way shape or form through something other than the brain? Can it even function without a medium at all? I'd say yes to both.

I hear what you say. Please show that what you say is truth.

Being expressed in another medium is something researchers are looking for in Ai, and seeing if it could ever get to a point where it has some sense of self and be able to express it.

This is not interesting because computers are not conscious. I acknowledge that you speculate that it could happen some day, but that is off topic for today.

As for the latter question, the evidence for that is having awareness while brain and senses are impaired which is what happened in Pam Reynold's case. Even while not being brain dead at one point, but how did her brain receive outside sensory information if her senses were impaired?

I don't know, please inform us. If you haven't done so already, please explain while this Pam Reynold case doesn't happen to anyone, other than Pam Reynold as we should see examples of something like this on the daily, but we don't.

I should also say there was a point where she didn't have brain activity (no measurable EEG), but we can't tie any of her experience to that point because her recalled details were about a point of time before the brain stopped, and it's also because her experience transitioned into some transcendental stuff, like going to another place and seeing her dead grandmother.

Please supply anything that would suggest she went to a place and saw her dead grandmother. Then explain why this doesn't happen to people not named Pam Reynold.
I am not denying that an experience took place by the way, just skeptical that it leads to the conclusion that consciousness exists independent of the brains of animals.

I was referring to subjective experiences of our mind, like the stuff we see, hear, and touch in our minds (in a dream for instance). We have neural correlation for that in the brain via neural activity, but I can't say that the experience is actually in the brain if we can't observe it. As an alternative, we can even say it occurs in the brain, but that doesn't mean it can't also occur in another medium or without a medium.

I am open to being shown this other medium you like to bring up. Please inform me about everything you know about this other medium.
 

Affecting our brains can also affects what we see, taste, touch, etc...
Makes me wonder if a dying brain might at times experience some odd things.

Yes, there is certainly interaction between the two.

Well... that's telling.

That doesn't mean that consciousness is caused by or restricted to brain

Correct, it doesn't mean that, but it does remain the best explanation currently.

There is no "theory" for the materialistic view that consciousness is a product of the brain.

Scientists have landed on two leading theories to explain how consciousness emerges: integrated information theory, or IIT, and global neuronal workspace theory, or GNWT.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... d-to-head/

[Clownboat]

Guess who heard this song while under general anesthesia and with medical ear buds on that generate clicking sounds? ("Hotel California")

Now guess how many people that are not named Pam Reynold are put under general anesthesia every single day that don't hear/see anything. Why is the Pam Reynold phenomenon so very rare if our consciousness actually is independent of our brains?

For anyone interested:
Anesthesia awareness is rare and occurs when a patient experiences consciousness during a period when they are supposed to be unconscious under general anesthesia. Some patients may only experience a vague sense of awareness, while others may recall specific events or even pain.