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 don't want to say that we're perceiving "images" (although I only say that they're not physical images, but are image-like), but you do agree that there's SOMETHING that we're perceiving, correct? If not an image, what is that something? Why can't scientists observe it?

I wouldn't argue that we're not perceiving images ... just as in dreams. I'm a pretty good dreamer and have vivid, colorful dreams just about every night that I can remember details of the next day. But why do these, or other instances of mental image perception such as simply imagining something, need any special explanation beyond that they are perceptions created by the brain via its ability to assemble inputs from its components to create the experience?

The reason why is that there's a difference between the cause or correlation ("assembling inputs from its components") and the effect (perception or experience itself). Covering only one of the two does not mean you completely explained the other. First, there are clearly different properties between the two types of phenomenon, like one being objectively observable and the other is not. One involving images or "visual content" while the other does not. Secondly, knowing the process doesn't mean you understand "why" one leads to the other. Here's David Chalmers on the WHY point:

It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does

.
Source: http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

Here's another explanation regarding HOW or WHY:
Pg. 13

Stating that neurons firing in a rhythmic manner generate the sensation of seeing red is no less mysterious than assuming that agitations of animal spirits in the pineal gland give rise to the passions of the soul. Your language is more mechanistic than Descartes’—after all, three and a half centuries have passed—but the basic dilemma remains as acute as ever. In both cases, we have to accept as an article of faith that some type of physical activity is capable of generating phenomenal feeling.[

Source: b]Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist (MIT Press) [/b] by Dr. Christof Koch

If you consider experiences like happiness, surprise, or fear, etc., these are not physical "things" in the brain that can be measured by science as some sort of physical entity that exists somewhere in the brain. They are emotions or "feelings" that result from the physical components of the brain interacting in specific ways to produce the relevant perception. I don't see why the perception of mental images, or consciousness, would be any different. These are all emergent properties of the brain functioning as it does as a system.

I consider "feelings" as being part of the problem of consciousness, as well. Under a materialist worldview, everything should be observable. I can accept that we have technological limitations so what's currently unobservable may eventually become observable, but consciousness faces a different problem. The problem is that we haven't even characterized it in a physical way, yet we can't deny that it exist.

There is no need to bring in some extra dimension or nonphysical explanation just because we can't yet explain the mechanisms at a molecular level.

Actually, it's not simply because we lack an explanation or because it's a mystery. There are some parameters that things should meet in order to be considered physical. We know that to perceive requires your SENSES. We know that physical things are OBJECTIVELY observable. We know that physical things are made of matter or have form. If this were a checklist for what's physical then everything would be a "yes". Just one "no" could raise an issue and yet I've already argued how certain mental phenomenon fail to meet several of these parameters.

Bottom line, if you were rational then you'd likely be agnostic on the issue. And I say this because you lack the evidence to even explain your position in the context of consciousness, yet you still proclaim it's true. That is irrational.

[Divine Insight]

@ AgnosticBoy,

It seems to me that you are simply misunderstanding the view of those who embrace the scientific explanations of the world.

For example, in the following exchange:

There is no need to bring in some extra dimension or nonphysical explanation just because we can't yet explain the mechanisms at a molecular level.

Bottom line, if you were rational then you'd likely be agnostic on the issue. And I say this because you lack the evidence to even explain your position in the context of consciousness, yet you still proclaim it's true. That is irrational.

I don't want to speak for DrNoGods, but it doesn't appear to me that DrNoGods is claiming to have the answer. What DrNoGods appears to be saying to me is that there is simply no reason to bring the non-physical speculations that you propose into the problem. It simply isn't yet required, nor does it amount to an 'explanation' anyway.

Proposing that something non-physical might be the answer is no different from ancient people proposing that Gods must be making lightening simply because they don't yet understand how electricity works.

Also you say that following:

Actually, it's not simply because we lack an explanation or because it's a mystery. There are some parameters that things should meet in order to be considered physical. We know that to perceive requires your SENSES. We know that physical things are OBJECTIVELY observable. We know that physical things are made of matter or have form. If this were a checklist for what's physical then everything would be a "yes". Just one "no" could raise an issue and yet I've already argued how certain mental phenomenon fail to meet several of these parameters.

Actually this doesn't make any sense either.

We understand how airplane wing work to cause lift, but no one can physically "see" the forces involved. We actually figure out what the forces need to be using abstract mathematics.

So we end up with "forces" that don't appear to be "physical" or more precisely, they don't appear to be "material".

No one can observe the actual forces. We just recognize they are produced as a side affect of various motions. You could say that these forces "emerge" from the given dynamics of the situation.

Why can't all the things you are concerned about with the brain also "emerge" in a similar fashion?

I'm pretty sure this is what DrNoGods is suggesting. Everything that is occurring in the brain is the result of many complex interactions.

Bringing in ideas of invisible non-physical "ghosts" for an explanation would be like bringing in the idea of invisible "ghosts" required to hold an airplane up in the air. It's just not necessary.

Plus invisible non-physical "explanations" are no explanations anyway. If you can't explain how non-physical things would interact with physical things without being directly detected, then you have no explanation anyway. So it's all for naught.

You may as well be saying that it must be gods creating lightening because we don't yet understand electricity. How is your position any different from this?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

I don't want to speak for DrNoGods, but it doesn't appear to me that DrNoGods is claiming to have the answer. What DrNoGods appears to be saying to me is that there is simply no reason to bring the non-physical speculations that you propose into the problem. It simply isn't yet required, nor does it amount to an 'explanation' anyway.

I'm pretty sure this is what DrNoGods is suggesting. Everything that is occurring in the brain is the result of many complex interactions.

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

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

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 21 by AgnosticBoy]

Secondly, knowing the process doesn't mean you understand "why" one leads to the other.

Right ... but doesn't it seem more rational to assume a physical mechanism as the source and we simply don't yet understand the details, than to invoke any other explanation? I'm not claiming to know anything about the detailed mechanisms behind consciousness, mental images, etc., but as a default position it seems reasonable to assume these are created by the complex interaction of brain components while scientists work towards an understanding at the molecular and subsystem level.

There are some parameters that things should meet in order to be considered physical. We know that to perceive requires your SENSES. We know that physical things are OBJECTIVELY observable. We know that physical things are made of matter or have form.

And these physical things, when assembled into a complex system, can be far more than the sum of the parts. We can observe the matter that the brain is made of, and see that there are trillions of synapses firing in very complicated ways in neural networks, memory creation, etc. Work described in research articles and books (like Dehaene's that was discussed previously) shows that large parts of the brain can "light up" (P3 wave) when stimulations reach a certain threshold. We're barely at the point of being able to measure and observe these kinds of events, much less explain them in detail. But there is no reason to believe that an organ as complex as a brain, with literally trillions of interacting synapses, could not create all of the things being discussed in this thread. Why invoke alternative possibilities at this point?

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't want to speak for DrNoGods, but it doesn't appear to me that DrNoGods is claiming to have the answer.

That's not the impression I get.

Proposing that something non-physical might be the answer is no different from ancient people proposing that Gods must be making lightening simply because they don't yet understand how electricity works.

To the contrary, it is because we understand how some things should work if they're physical, that we can begin to notice when something is lacking it. There's a reason that scientists call 'hallucinations' non-existent, not real, etc. If hallucinations occupied space then they would be objectively observable. If mental images were physical, then we could perceive them with our senses, just as we perceive other visual stimuli.

Actually, it's not simply because we lack an explanation or because it's a mystery. There are some parameters that things should meet in order to be considered physical. We know that to perceive requires your SENSES. We know that physical things are OBJECTIVELY observable. We know that physical things are made of matter or have form. If this were a checklist for what's physical then everything would be a "yes". Just one "no" could raise an issue and yet I've already argued how certain mental phenomenon fail to meet several of these parameters.

Actually this doesn't make any sense either.

We understand how airplane wing work to cause lift, but no one can physically "see" the forces involved. We actually figure out what the forces need to be using abstract mathematics.

So we end up with "forces" that don't appear to be "physical" or more precisely, they don't appear to be "material".

No one can observe the actual forces. We just recognize they are produced as a side affect of various motions. You could say that these forces "emerge" from the given dynamics of the situation.

Not true. Here's why:

All matter around us is made of elementary particles, the building blocks of matter.
...
There are four fundamental forces at work in the universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force.
...
Three of the fundamental forces result from the exchange of force-carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called “bosons�. Particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other. Each fundamental force has its own corresponding boson – the strong force is carried by the “gluon�, the electromagnetic force is carried by the “photon�, and the “W and Z bosons� are responsible for the weak force. Although not yet found, the “graviton� should be the corresponding force-carrying particle of gravity.

Source: https://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model

I also believe that you would agree with me that physical things are objectively observable. That makes perfect sense so you clearly can't be disagreeing with all of the parameters I mentioned.

Why can't all the things you are concerned about with the brain also "emerge" in a similar fashion?

I'm pretty sure this is what DrNoGods is suggesting. Everything that is occurring in the brain is the result of many complex interactions.

Bringing in ideas of invisible non-physical "ghosts" for an explanation would be like bringing in the idea of invisible "ghosts" required to hold an airplane up in the air. It's just not necessary.

Plus invisible non-physical "explanations" are no explanations anyway. If you can't explain how non-physical things would interact with physical things without being directly detected, then you have no explanation anyway. So it's all for naught.

You may as well be saying that it must be gods creating lightening because we don't yet understand electricity. How is your position any different from this?

I believe that consciousness is emergent but that alone is not an explanation of what each side of the interaction (the cause and the emergent effect) consist of. All that emergence tells me is that the properties of at one level are different than the properties of another level. Well, what do those properties consist of? If you went into detail on that, then you'd realize that consciousness has properties that can not be characterized physically. It's not a surprise that we LACK a structural and functional explanation for it!

[Divine Insight]

To the contrary, it is because we understand how some things should work if they're physical, that we can begin to notice when something is lacking it. There's a reason that scientists call 'hallucinations' non-existent, not real, etc. If hallucinations occupied space then they would be objectively observable. If mental images were physical, then we could perceive them with our senses, just as we perceive other visual stimuli.

I can't believe you said the above. No scientist has ever said that the personal experience of having a hallucination is not real. What they point out is that when a person has a hallucination, what they are hallucinating is not actually happening in the real world.

In other words, if you hallucinate that you see an elephant standing in front of you when there is no actual physical elephant there, then the object you are hallucinating to exist is not real. This doesn't mean that your experience of having a hallucination is not real.

So you are twisting what scientists are even saying.

Scientists totally accept that people really do have hallucinations. And in that sense hallucinations are real. In fact, we can even understand hallucinations to a very large degree. We all have the ability to imagine things in our minds (no scientists deny this). So we can all look at an empty street and imagine in our mind a person standing in the middle of the empty street. Of course we maintain the ability to recognize the difference between merely imagining this and believing that there actually is someone standing in the middle of the empty street. In the meantime, a person who is having a "hallucination" is simply a person who has lost the ability to separate their imagination from reality.

So there you have it. Hallucinations explained.

I believe that consciousness is emergent but that alone is not an explanation of what each side of the interaction (the cause and the emergent effect) consist of. All that emergence tells me is that the properties of at one level is different than the properties of another level. Well, what do those properties consist of? If you went into detail on that, then you'd realize that consciousness has properties that can not be characterized physically. It's not a surprise that we LACK a structural and functional explanation for it!

I have to disagree with you on this.

I'm currently writing computer programs as we speak. I am surrounded by 9 computers. Four of them are laptops, and the other five are Raspberry Pi computers. I have them all talking to each other and I'm doing all of this to study A.I. programming.

These computers are already doing things that far transcend anything that can be physically observed.

I mean, sure, I could show you the coding for my programming and you would then say, "I see how it all works now". But think about that. You would only be able to see how it works if I show you the computer program. Without that print-out you wouldn't be able to "see" how these things do what they do.

So how is that any different from a human brain?

Just because you can't physically see the programming doesn't mean that the programming doesn't physically exist.

[William]

[Replying to post 25 by AgnosticBoy]

I believe that consciousness is emergent...

As far as I can tell, this belief is based upon interpretation of the data observed and that can be interpreted...

...but that alone is not an explanation of what each side of the interaction (the cause and the emergent effect) consist of.

Since the 'cause' is believed to be the brain, one knows what that consists of. It is the effect which the consistency is unknown.

All that emergence tells me is that the properties of at one level are different than the properties of another level. Well, what do those properties consist of? If you went into detail on that, then you'd realize that consciousness has properties that can not be characterized physically. It's not a surprise that we LACK a structural and functional explanation for it!

IF the brain were a tree, what part of the tree would characterize consciousness?

The earth?

The roots?

The bark?

The trunk?

The branches?

The twigs?

The leaves?

The sunlight and atmosphere?

Consciousness is able to be recognized only by consciousness, and then only through action and reaction through biological forms can it be observed, and even then what is being observed might not even be the true quintessence because of the interaction between what is physical and what obviously isn't physical yet still exists and can be observed through the physical.

The comedy related to that is relevant too.

Generally speaking, the LACK of structural and functional explanation for consciousness signifies uncertainty of self and that space still requires filling, hence the comedy.

Not that I am saying it is all funny mind you. Just pointing out how more oft than not, the humorous side of this is overlooked in our serious discovery of a ghost in the machine to which we say the machine created for itself.

And the woo-hoo that ghost invents in a desperate attempt to deny that any machine could possibly have created it.

Or is it really 'woo-hoo'?

After-all, it is that ghost hoo has accepted it is a creation of the machine which comes up with those derogates.

In a recent debate Di says this to DrNogods;

We could say, "Well duh? It's the brain that is having an experience!"

But that really misses the entire point I just made. What is the brain other than a configuration of energy that exhibits four forces, NONE OF WHICH explain exactly what it is that is actually having an experience.

So I'm not convinced that science is even equipped to answer this questions.

Perhaps science has missed an important premise from the get go? If we assume that energy can have an experience, then it's built-in to the system. But without that assumption science cannot explain what is having an experience.

So yes - to assume 'energy is having an experience' is to at least partially acknowledge the Ghost In The Machine.

Of course, this still implies that consciousness is emergent of brains, but since intelligence can be acknowledged in processes which don't directly involve brains, and we know that consciousness and intelligence are aspects of the same, fundamental, we can by that implication, acknowledge that a brain is not necessarily required in relation to consciousness and in that, consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, even that it may appear to be, when observed from a particular position which encourages that interpretation.

[AgnosticBoy]

To the contrary, it is because we understand how some things should work if they're physical, that we can begin to notice when something is lacking it. There's a reason that scientists call 'hallucinations' non-existent, not real, etc. If hallucinations occupied space then they would be objectively observable. If mental images were physical, then we could perceive them with our senses, just as we perceive other visual stimuli.

I can't believe you said the above. No scientist has ever said that the personal experience of having a hallucination is not real. What they point out is that when a person has a hallucination, what they are hallucinating is not actually happening in the real world.

In other words, if you hallucinate that you see an elephant standing in front of you when there is no actual physical elephant there, then the object you are hallucinating to exist is not real. This doesn't mean that your experience of having a hallucination is not real.

So you are twisting what scientists are even saying.

Scientists totally accept that people really do have hallucinations. And in that sense hallucinations are real. In fact, we can even understand hallucinations to a very large degree. We all have the ability to imagine things in our minds (no scientists deny this). So we can all look at an empty street and imagine in our mind a person standing in the middle of the empty street. Of course we maintain the ability to recognize the difference between merely imagining this and believing that there actually is someone standing in the middle of the empty street. In the meantime, a person who is having a "hallucination" is simply a person who has lost the ability to separate their imagination from reality.

So there you have it. Hallucinations explained.

This part of your post proves my point:

In other words, if you hallucinate that you see an elephant standing in front of you when there is no actual physical elephant there, then the object you are hallucinating to exist is not real. This doesn't mean that your experience of having a hallucination is not real.

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

[Monta]

[Replying to post 23 by DrNoGods]



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

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

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

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

[Divine Insight]

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

You've totally lost it now.

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

We know that's demonstrably false.

Yet this is what you are arguing for.

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

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