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]

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.

[AgnosticBoy]

To scientific materialism, mental images and the perception of them must be brain-states.

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

I still maintain that the standard scientific explanation for consciousness is weak and unconvincing. Take the above explanation which really amounts to being a dogma. How is a hallucination an end-to-end physical phenomenon?

In my view, consciousness is a brain state and more.

[Clownboat]

I still maintain that the standard scientific explanation for consciousness is weak and unconvincing.

This is why people have accused you of complaining about the best explanation we have so far.
It's like you are complaining that the Koenigsegg Jesko Absolut, just isn't fast enough for you. I can acknowledge that it isn't fast enough for you, but it is still the fastest we got, unless you have something better to offer. Here in this thread I have not noticed a better explanation (/faster car).

How is a hallucination an end-to-end physical phenomenon?

It doesn't seem to be, but perhaps I am not understanding your question?

In my view, consciousness is a brain state

An emerging property of a functioning brain to be precise.

and more

Allow me to now complain about this explanation, that isn't an explanation, explains exactly nothing and isn't the best explanation currently available.
Again, it's like you are complaining that our fastest car just isn't fast enough.
My complaint would be that you aren't even presenting a car.

[AgnosticBoy]

I still maintain that the standard scientific explanation for consciousness is weak and unconvincing.

This is why people have accused you of complaining about the best explanation we have so far.
It's like you are complaining that the Koenigsegg Jesko Absolut, just isn't fast enough for you. I can acknowledge that it isn't fast enough for you, but it is still the fastest we got, unless you have something better to offer. Here in this thread I have not noticed a better explanation (/faster car).

A better explanation is not required to show that one explanation doesn't work or is flawed. Of course, it would be ideal to have a better explanation, but absent that doesn't automatically make the materialistic explanation valid.

For the record, I don't have my own explanation or theory to account for all facts/observations, but what I do have are data points or evidence that don't align with the current paradigms. Mental imagery is just one piece of evidence that I've gone through in this discussion.

How is a hallucination an end-to-end physical phenomenon?

It doesn't seem to be, but perhaps I am not understanding your question?

The point i was trying to make is that brain activity is involved, but it's not the entire story. This goes back to the hard problem when it comes to understanding how does brain make subjective experience or we can even ask if the brain is even causing or just correlating with experience. A good test to prove either way is to see if consciousness can exist without brain in some way, shape, or form. And I would argue that there is evidence to suggest just that but it gets to a point to where we can't measure it any more.

In my view, consciousness is a brain state

An emerging property of a functioning brain to be precise.

That's where my money is at, as well.

Allow me to now complain about this explanation, that isn't an explanation, explains exactly nothing and isn't the best explanation currently available.
Again, it's like you are complaining that our fastest car just isn't fast enough.
My complaint would be that you aren't even presenting a car.

At the least, all that's needed to show that science has a problem is evidence against the materialistic paradigm. The fact that even just exploring alternatives or just questioning materialism gets some scientists riled up shows that this goes beyond just evidence, but rather it's also about not wanting associations with spirituality, religion, or even just simply wanting their ideology (materialism) to be right at all costs.

[A Freeman]

What people commonly refer to as their "conscience" is actually God speaking to them.

Every individual soul is a spiritual-Being that is temporarily incarnated inside of the human body they see in the mirror. Hence the designation human+Being.

The soul is connected to our Creator via His Holy Spirit, which serves as the conduit through which all wisdom, guidance, communication and even an "early warning detection system" flow.

The human body is connected to Lucifer/Satan/Iblis, who uses the body to tempt us with Earthly pleasures and treasures.

This system was set up to teach and test us, to see if we actually want to learn how to be good/unselfish (thereby serving our Creator and our fellow souls), or whether we wish to continue being evil/selfish (thereby serving the "self"/ego and Satan).

This is why human "science" will NEVER be able to understand nor explain ANYTHING spiritual. It is impossible for a human to see or hear anything spiritual, because they lack the facilities to do so. The motivations and inner workings of the spiritual-Being (soul) will remain a mystery forever to those who have forgotten who and what we really are.

[A Freeman]

The battlefield is, and always has been, IN THE MIND.

Within each mind, there is the spiritual-Being, which should be in control, and there is the human imagination and its incessant, random musings.

A very simple test that can be conducted by any spiritual-Being, to see if they are in control of their own mind, is as follows:

1) sit in a comfortable chair, or lay flat on a bed, and close the bodies eyes;

2) clear the mind of all thought and maintain that peace and clarity; and

3) see how long it is before the first random thought "jumps" into the mind.

For most, the time interval is usually very short (e.g. 1-2 seconds) which should tell them that they are not in control of their own mind.

Instead, most are swimming in a sea of emotions, allowing those emotions to lead them wherever they go. Thoughts and regrets about the past. Plans and concerns about the future. NEVER their mind on where they are (the present moment) and on what they are doing.

Just as one can exercise the body and train it through practice to do things it otherwise could not do, it is possible to learn to control the mind, seeing the thoughts that enter it as they are forming. It simply requires one recognize there is a higher, spiritual self, a willingness to explore and learn about how the mind actually works, and enough practice.

There are a few videos on the human "self" (the ego) that are instructive, and which may be found at the following hyperlinked article:

Who Lucifer REALLY Is And Why You Should Care

This is why "science" will never be able to understand much less explain things like intuition, a "gut-feeling", premonition, NDEs, etc., because they are all beyond the physical realms in which human science operates.

[Clownboat]

A better explanation is not required to show that one explanation doesn't work or is flawed.

I never said it was. I said you are complaining about the best explanation that we have. I acknowledge your complaints about our best explanation and note that it remains the best explanation available.

Of course, it would be ideal to have a better explanation, but absent that doesn't automatically make the materialistic explanation valid.

Your lack of being able to provide a better explanation is not what makes the materialistic explanation the best explanation. We just note your complaints and your inability to suggest something better.

For the record, I don't have my own explanation or theory to account for all facts/observations, but what I do have are data points or evidence that don't align with the current paradigms. Mental imagery is just one piece of evidence that I've gone through in this discussion.

Your complaints are acknowledged. They are not super interesting though. A better explanation would be interesting.

The point i was trying to make is that brain activity is involved, but it's not the entire story.

I here your claim, but brain activity does seem to be the entire story. What is this other part of the story we are not aware of and how do you know about it?

This goes back to the hard problem when it comes to understanding how does brain make subjective experience or we can even ask if the brain is even causing or just correlating with experience. A good test to prove either way is to see if consciousness can exist without brain in some way, shape, or form. And I would argue that there is evidence to suggest just that but it gets to a point to where we can't measure it any more.

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

At the least, all that's needed to show that science has a problem is evidence against the materialistic paradigm. The fact that even just exploring alternatives or just questioning materialism gets some scientists riled up shows that this goes beyond just evidence, but rather it's also about not wanting associations with spirituality, religion, or even just simply wanting their ideology (materialism) to be right at all costs.

Now you are just projecting religious thinking on to others. You are religious and you want your ideology to be right. Science is a method used to arrive at truths and it is the best mechanism to date humans have come up with to do just that. If there are Gods that affect our world, science will detect them (the affects) and it is wrong for you to assume that there is some ideology that must be maintained.

Bottom line, if any Gods are real, we would want to know about them. Materialism is not some religion that must be protected. If it's wrong, it is simply wrong and a better mechanism will be accepted. Science corrects itself all the time. Therefore it is unfair and not accurate to compare it to religions that just claim to be true and deny any suggestions to the contrary.