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]

What interests me is how some argue that a brain is necessary for consciousness to emerge and will accept that (re the example I gave earlier in this thread) the Leafcutter Ant has consciousness because it has a brain but reject that the tree it cuts leaves from or the mycelium it feeds the leaves to, are not conscious - and why? Because these do not have brains.

I acknowledge that if someone were to make such a claim here, you would find it interesting.

Yet clearly, both the tree and the mycelium are aware of their environment, and the argument that consciousness is required for anything to be aware of the environment flies in the face of the claim that only things with brains have consciousness.

How mycelium becomes aware of its surroundings is understood and things without brains are also conscious of their environment.

Do you acknowledge that in humans, our brains are enough to explain how we become aware of our surroundings? You can answer this honestly because it wouldn't mean that consciousness cannot also be independent of our brains.

Those who make such claims, at the very least, should show what the brain of trees and mycelium is/could be so we have clear indication of what they mean by a "brain".

Trees are not animals, which have brains. Therefore to ask to be shown the brain of a tree is silly.

I believe I addressed all of your points.

You have provided some good food for thought though and perhaps you weren't even aware.
Since fungi don't require brains to become aware of their surroundings, surely something with a brain would be even more capable of becoming aware of its surroundings. Perhaps things with brains sometimes contemplate 'who' is becoming aware and get tricked into thinking that consciousness is external like is suggested in neuroscience. Thoughts on that by chance?

[AgnosticBoy]

Divine Insight and DrNOGods haven't commented in this thread since March of 2018 so why not address my critiques?

Short answer is the conversation has deteriorated. Accusations are flying back and forth about members wasting each other's times, not responding to rebuttals, yada, yada, yada. Then you take a week at times to respond to a post. That's a low quality and low interest debate.

The debates between both Divine Insight and DrNoGod and myself still ended in no side agreeing with the other, but the debate quality was still good, at least. Not to mention, it's more worth it to me, reputation-wise, to debate the top atheists that have won awards than to debate an unknown. I'm looking to impress the audience and not turn them off with back-and-forth pettiness.

Hasn't been much debate between William and I because our views don't really conflict in any major way, but regardless I still appreciate his views nonetheless. He's on to something and I think that's where the science of consciousness is headed (with theories like IIT).

[Clownboat]

Divine Insight and DrNOGods haven't commented in this thread since March of 2018 so why not address my critiques?

Short answer is the conversation has deteriorated.

That's what happens when you falsely accuse your debate opponents with not addressing your points.

Accusations are flying back and forth about members wasting each other's times, not responding to rebuttals, yada, yada, yada.

That is a little blown out of proportion. There was only one accurate accusation of William wasting my time because he only argues that he is conscious. Even you must admit that to debate such a thing is in fact a waste of time. Do you wonder if William in conscious? Would you find that to be something worth debating or a waste of time?

Then you take a week at times to respond to a post. That's a low quality and low interest debate.

I have been on vacation. Just to warn you, I leave again in two days.

The debates between both Divine Insight and DrNoGod and myself still ended in no side agreeing with the other, but the debate quality was still good, at least. Not to mention, it's more worth it to me, reputation-wise, to debate the top atheists that have won awards than to debate an unknown. I'm looking to impress the audience and not turn them off with back-and-forth pettiness.

IMO, you have been far too dishonest about me ignoring your evidence to impress any audience.
You know that anecdotal evidence is bad, but instead of admitting that that is what you are providing, you pretend that I'm ignoring your evidence. My criticism of your evidence is rational though.

Hasn't been much debate between William and I because our views don't really conflict in any major way, but regardless I still appreciate his views nonetheless. He's on to something and I think that's where the science of consciousness is headed (with theories like IIT).

I truly hope either of you are on to something. Time will tell though.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #107]

Why not opt for a conclusion like the latter that fits the evidence just as well AND leaves room for us to find answers in more areas, including William's view?

There is no doubt in my mind the a human consciousness is an emergent property of a human brain. There is also no doubt in my mind that human brains are emergent from a biological process which is also conscious.

Furthermore there is no doubt in my mind that the conscious biological process is able to save what each human brain has birthed...that being, the human personality which grew from out of that process and this, by way of explaining all reports of all the strange happenings humans experience and have done so throughout human existence.

It is one thing to think the human personality (ie consciousness) emerged through brain activity and another thing completely to claim that the brain is therefore responsible for all the experiences each human consciousness experiences.

Brain worship to that degree is jumping step to a "not necessarily so" conclusion and is best avoided believing in. Keep it in mind by all means, but let's not make that a gatekeeper.

A decade ago, a view like yours would've been laughed at and even shunned. But the fact that a theory that posits consciousness existing beyond the brain is seen as being a "leading theory" speaks for itself.

I think one big reason why the climate is changing is because looking to the brain alone is finally being seen as a dead end. Centuries worth of consciousness study has passed and we still don't have a theory of consciousness. If the issue was solved by only positing brain alone, then we probably wouldn't need to look elsewhere. Just my two cents.

Just wanted to probe more on this point...

Furthermore there is no doubt in my mind that the conscious biological process is able to save what each human brain has birthed...that being, the human personality which grew from out of that process and this, by way of explaining all reports of all the strange happenings humans experience and have done so throughout human existence.

We can say that consciousness is an emergent property. But then where does that fit in with the consciousness that's part of the Universe at large? To me that says that consciousness already existed before the brain. The only thing the brain added was perhaps a unique way for consciousness to experience the world and to be able to ask questions (communicate) about it.

[William]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #124]

A decade ago, a view like yours would've been laughed at and even shunned. But the fact that a theory that posits consciousness existing beyond the brain is seen as being a "leading theory" speaks for itself.

Not sure that the theory is mainstream "leading"...and the things humans laugh about are really no indication those things are therefore incorrect.

I think one big reason why the climate is changing is because looking to the brain alone is finally being seen as a dead end.

I have used that expression here in this thread. Atheism is also a "dead end" like with mazes... some settle on the reality of the wall and accept that as their standard...others move around and explore...

Centuries worth of consciousness study has passed and we still don't have a theory of consciousness. If the issue was solved by only positing brain alone, then we probably wouldn't need to look elsewhere.

The interesting thing is that human consciousness is a mystery to humans and also, signs of consciousness in things which have no known brains is something those who believe they are their brains, find preposterous to even contemplate...and that is where the laughter you mentioned, originates...

Just wanted to probe more on this point...

Furthermore there is no doubt in my mind that the conscious biological process is able to save what each human brain has birthed...that being, the human personality which grew from out of that process and this, by way of explaining all reports of all the strange happenings humans experience and have done so throughout human existence.

We can say that consciousness is an emergent property. But then where does that fit in with the consciousness that's part of the Universe at large? To me that says that consciousness already existed before the brain. The only thing the brain added was perhaps a unique way for consciousness to experience the world and to be able to ask questions (communicate) about it.

I think this is where the idea that consciousness itself is physical on a fundamental level comes to the fore.

Either that, or (if consciousness is non-physical) then so too is everything else...but I see no advantage in the dualism of non-physical/physical realities due complications which naturally arise from that perspective and fail to answers some of the bigger questions as a result.

So, going with the "consciousness is physical" simply because we understand "physical things" as we daily interact with physical objects and thus it is easier to comprehend physical things actually being physical rather than just appearing to be physical...

...so when we assume consciousness must be non-physical, we require an explanation as to how a non-physical presence can not only create a physical reality, but also interact with it even to the point of being physically captured by it (in human forms in our case).

In simple terms, the way I understand it presently is that the idea of multi-universes (realities) is not in that these are separate "bubbles" which exist independently and which we theoretically can "shift awareness to" (and thus experience these as "alternate" to our primary universe reality) ... but rather all universes exist in the same "space" essentially superimposed with one another, but we only experience our particular universe from all the rest because of the forms we wear which enable us to not only interact with said universe, but perceive it as we do, without the cluster of the superimposed - so the human form is essentially designed to enable the consciousness within it to experience certain parts of reality but not all reality (certain aspects of the superimposed whole) which is where, for humans - the brain-body (sensory system et al) is like a suit we wear for the particular experience - and the suit is temporal - has a use by date - but the consciousness which occupied and experienced it, is eternal - has never not existed and will never not exist...

Thus, human consciousness does not “emerge” from brains alone — brains emerge from a universal conscious process, then serve as localized, specialized interfaces that shape and limit the range of conscious experience.

[Clownboat]

Not sure that the theory is mainstream "leading"...

That is an honorable correction. Good on you!

The interesting thing is that human consciousness is a mystery to humans and also, signs of consciousness in things which have no known brains is something those who believe they are their brains, find preposterous to even contemplate...and that is where the laughter you mentioned, originates...

Post 121:
You have provided some good food for thought though and perhaps you weren't even aware.
Since fungi don't require brains to become aware of their surroundings, surely something with a brain would be even more capable of becoming aware of its surroundings. Perhaps things with brains sometimes contemplate 'who' is becoming aware and get tricked into thinking that consciousness is external like is suggested in neuroscience. Thoughts on that by chance?

I think this is where the idea that consciousness itself is physical on a fundamental level comes to the fore.

When we taste, smell, see and feel the world around us, it is physical. This is not some 'idea' but reality.
Why must there be some non physical process going on? Religious people will argue for a soul so they have something to go to heaven or hell. I fear you desire something non physical because of your simulation beliefs. Am I wrong and there is a valid reason that consciousness isn't physical? If there is, I would like to know this reason as I also desire our consciousness to be external (I just don't see that as necessary yet).

Either that, or (if consciousness is non-physical) then so too is everything else...

That doesn't follow. My ability to sense the world around me could come from some external source and that wouldn't mean that the tree I'm looking at isn't physical.

So, going with the "consciousness is physical" simply because we understand "physical things" as we daily interact with physical objects and thus it is easier to comprehend physical things actually being physical rather than just appearing to be physical...

How we become aware of our surrounding is physical. You and AgnosticBoy argue that more is needed but so far have failed to show that more is in fact needed. Again, again, again, again, I'm open to consciousness being external and even want such a thing to be valid.

...so when we assume consciousness must be non-physical

To dissect this:
...so when we assume that how we become aware of our surroundings must be non-physical...
Why would anyone assume this?
I know why religious people do, but why would Joe Smo assume such a thing? Would Joe wonder about some smell and then arrive at the conclusion that something external must be involved with him detecting this smell? If so, why?

In simple terms, the way I understand it presently is that the idea of multi-universes (realities) is not in that these are separate "bubbles" which exist independently and which we theoretically can "shift awareness to" (and thus experience these as "alternate" to our primary universe reality) ... but rather all universes exist in the same "space" essentially superimposed with one another, but we only experience our particular universe from all the rest because of the forms we wear which enable us to not only interact with said universe, but perceive it as we do, without the cluster of the superimposed - so the human form is essentially designed to enable the consciousness within it to experience certain parts of reality but not all reality (certain aspects of the superimposed whole) which is where, for humans - the brain-body (sensory system et al) is like a suit we wear for the particular experience - and the suit is temporal - has a use by date - but the consciousness which occupied and experienced it, is eternal - has never not existed and will never not exist...

Have you heard about my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ?

brains emerge from a universal conscious process

Now I must throw away our understanding of human brain development? You demand too much IMO.

[AgnosticBoy]

Not sure that the theory is mainstream "leading"...

Some might quibble about how "mainstream" a panpsychist type theory is, but I would say it is mainstream or heading there.

It is being taken seriously by scientists and being called a leading theory by the scientific community. It is talked about in scientific peer-reviewed mainstream sources. All of that is a big step forward.

Decades ago, scientists were dead set on looking for the neural correlates of consciousness to help explain consciousness, and IIT likely had little to no place in in any scientific mainstream source the farther back you go.


Published in 2013:

What Koch proposes is a scientifically refined version of an ancient philosophical doctrine called panpsychism — and, coming from someone else, it might sound more like spirituality than science. But Koch has devoted the last three decades to studying the neurological basis of consciousness. His work at the Allen Institute now puts him at the forefront of the BRAIN Initiative, the massive new effort to understand how brains work, which will begin next year.

Source: https://www.wired.com/2013/11/christof- ... ciousness/

“I find it striking,” the neuroscientist Christof Koch told me on a video call, “that after 2,400 years, we are now back to panpsychism. This is like scientists discussing whether the Earth is actually flat, or if the heart is the seat of the soul. I mean …”

Koch, one of the world’s most renowned neuroscientists, is the chief scientist of the MindScope Program at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle.

Tononi’s scientific research aligned with what some philosophers of consciousness believe about panpsychism: “It says consciousness is graded and much more widely distributed,” Koch said. “Giulio tried to downplay that at first because he felt people would then reject it out of hand, but I kept on pushing.” In 2015, they published a paper together titled “Consciousness: Here, There and Everywhere?” in which they stated that while IIT was not developed with panpsychism in mind, it did seem to share its central intuitions.

Source: https://www.noemamag.com/the-conscious-universe/

[AgnosticBoy]

Thus, human consciousness does not “emerge” from brains alone — brains emerge from a universal conscious process, then serve as localized, specialized interfaces that shape and limit the range of conscious experience.

You are in good company as science is trending your way. Philosophers are as well. Ironically, your type of view is not new, but rather what's new is that it's being taken seriously by scientists, and I don't doubt that the lack of a verifiable answer/theory from the "consciousness is just brain activity" side has much to do with it.

Here's from a leading neuroscientist, Dr. Christof Koch...https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... universal/

As a natural scientist, I find a version of panpsychism modified for the 21st century to be the single most elegant and parsimonious explanation for the universe I find myself in. There are three broad reasons why panpsychism is appealing to the modern mind.

Taken literally, panpsychism is the belief that everything is “enminded.” All of it. Whether it is a brain, a tree, a rock or an electron. Everything that is physical also possesses an interior mental aspect. One is objective—accessible to everybody—and the other phenomenal—accessible only to the subject. That is the sense of the quotation by British-born Buddhist scholar Alan Watts with which I began this essay.

I will defend a narrowed, more nuanced view: namely that any complex system, as defined below, has the basic attributes of mind and has a minimal amount of consciousness in the sense that it feels like something to be that system. If the system falls apart, consciousness ceases to be; it doesn't feel like anything to be a broken system. And the more complex the system, the larger the repertoire of conscious states it can experience.

...But from whence does this experience come? Materialists invoke something they call emergentism to explain how consciousness can be absent in simple nervous systems and emerge as their complexity increases.
...
Yet the mental is too radically different for it to arise gradually from the physical. This emergence of subjective feelings from physical stuff appears inconceivable and is at odds with a basic precept of physical thinking, the Ur-conservation law—ex nihilo nihil fit. So if there is nothing there in the first place, adding a little bit more won't make something. If a small brain won't be able to feel pain, why should a large brain be able to feel the god-awfulness of a throbbing toothache? Why should adding some neurons give rise to this ineffable feeling? The phenomenal hails from a kingdom other than the physical and is subject to different laws. I see no way for the divide between unconscious and conscious states to be bridged by bigger brains or more complex neurons.

These century-old arguments bring me to the conceptual framework of the integrated information theory (IIT) of psychiatrist and neuroscientist Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. It postulates that conscious experience is a fundamental aspect of reality and is identical to a particular type of information—integrated information. Consciousness depends on a physical substrate but is not reducible to it. That is, my experience of seeing an aquamarine blue is inexorably linked to my brain but is different from my brain.

Any system that possesses some nonzero amount of integrated information experiences something. Let me repeat: any system that has even one bit of integrated information has a very minute conscious experience.

To be conscious, then, you need to be a single, integrated entity with a large repertoire of highly differentiated states. Even if the hard disk on my laptop exceeds in capacity my lifetime memories, none of its information is integrated. The family photos on my Mac are not linked to one another. The computer does not know that the boy in those pictures is my son as he matures from a toddler to an awkward teenager and then a graceful adult. To my computer, all information is equally meaningless, just a vast, random tapestry of 0s and 1s. Yet I derive meaning from these images because my memories are heavily cross-linked. And the more interconnected, the more meaningful they become.