You can't see everything that's happening in the brain by looking at it from a third person perspective. You can only see the red stripe in the brain if the brain is yours.
We don't have the technology that gives us 100% knowledge of the brain. What Dan is saying is that if we did have this knowledge, then that would necessarily include all the information of what the 1st person subject would feel as well, as well as a lot of information that the 1st person subject does not have access to.
If we had complete 3rd person knowledge of someone's brain, maybe we could make a machine that uses this to give someone else the 1st person experience.
The point wasn't that someone else can see the red stripe automatically by looking at someone else's brain, but that the information is in there. Dan is saying you could potentially extract that information and determine scientifically what it means. This means that the information is not private. While the 1st person has the most immediate access to his own experiences, but he is not the only person to potentially have access to it once technology improves.
Unfortunately everything in that image and screen is roatating, buzzing and not still. I wish I could shrink this man down to the size of the nucleus of an atom where the orbit of a proton would be roataing him at a Km of a distance out.
Dennett obviously doesn't know how afterimages work. We *are* seeing the colors negated by the photoreceptors in our eyes. How can anyone take him seriously on this subject when he gets something that elementary wrong?
He also conflates our perceptions with our *interpretations* of those perceptions. Phenomenal consciousness is perceptual experience, not cognitive interpretation. Again, how can he overlook something so elementary?
@balancingman Beginning with such a dismissive tone suggests your impatience not his ignorance. He is giving an hour-long talk. He has many books, and dozens of peer reviewed articles on these matters... your incharitable/hasty reading does neither you, nor this community, much good. The whole section on diffusive computation indicates he's dealing with interpretation. Percepts are neurally encoded in a language we don't speak. Color fatigue DOES show that what seems not white IS white.
He's making the point that we are not seeing any "red object" in space. It is not there, but we are made to believe in our stream of consciousness that we HAVE seen a red object. When, as you say, there is no red object, but rather our mind is tricked by the inhibitory signals from the photoreceptors to make us believe a flag is there when it is really a white screen.
@lookatmepleasesir How do you characterize what an after image "looks like"? The point is that an after image "seems" to exist in space...on the screen. You are not taking into account that you already know what an after-image is and how it works. Thus, you can distinguish between what seems to be an after image and what seems to be a permanent red object.
As far as I know he is wrong about there being nothing causing the red stripes.
There is nothing outside on the screen causing the red stripes, but there is an afterimage effect on the retina and this is what you see. In other words it is not nothing; it is residual retinal activity this is communicated to the visual cortex and 'seen' as faint red stripes.
@Drastam, that might explain the red in your eye, but what happens then when your eyes are closed and you're just remembering something that's red. Where is the red in that case?
In visual imaging with the eyes closed the visual cortex is usually active; but there is also a form of spatial imaging that involves the parietal lobe. All this has been demonstrated using fMRI scanners
By the way, to be mistaken about an optical illusion one must be conscious of the illusion? No?
@Drastam, I'd say no. They need to be conscious it's an illusion in order to realize what they thought they saw isn't there. If unaware's they just experience whatever effect it was without any awareness of the discrepancy between their experience and the external world. That's not quite the same as being mistaken, in my opinion because we already know every part of our experience is an illusion of sorts. There are no actual hard surfaces in our universe, for example. Only force fields.
@Drastam, but I don't know how to interpret that question. Do I believe that my experience of consciousness is no different in nature than my experience of colors? Yes. Do I believe it means I don't have a soul? No. I get the feeling that I do, but that it's made out of lots of tiny robots. I think we are a sophisticated mammal who's minds have been effectively hijacked by parasitic memes that drive us like robots to copy themselves. We're "along for the ride" rather than active participants.
@ananiasacts The experience of colour is a conscious experience...and it seems to me in conscious experience there is the known (colour) and the knower - awareness and that of which it is aware.
As to memes and the personal mind I agree with you...but it is possible, I believe, to gain a level of agency.
@Drastam, But the colors we see don't exist. Most don't even correspond to particular wavelengths of light, but mixtures of several, that we experience as pure. It proves we're only seeing a creation of our own minds--a fantasy only useful by virtue of the way it is mapped onto the underlying physical stimulus. I think Dennett is saying that what we experience as consciousness is a similar thing: an illusory image created by projecting our actually thought processes into a simpler ordered space.
Consciousness IS the experiencing...illusory and real experiences are equally conscious experiences. No consciousness, no experience.
The true nature of our conscious experience and its relation to the underlying physical reality, is another matter. I agree, perception is a mental construction...but that does not make it any less conscious.
@Drastam, But then how are you in any disagreement with Dennett? In essence you both seem to be saying "consciousness is just what we call the process of experiencing the mapping of our preprocessed sensory input onto the internal representations for prior experiences that exist in our minds." (And noting that some of those inputs are actually the "outputs" of preceding moments's consciousnesses.) Does that pretty much sum up what you believe is going on?
@ananiasacts I dont agree with Dennett. He says there is no such thing as subjective consciousness. Also he claims there is no essential difference between first and third person experience.
The puzzle of consciousness is not the sensory, perceptual and cognitive processing that our nervous system does; it is that there is awareness of the processes.
The word "experiencing" indicates the hidden subject in the sentence you quote.
@Drastam "I dont agree with Dennett. He says there is no such thing as subjective consciousness"
What Dennett actually says in his books is that the phenomenon of subjective consciousness is an illusion that the brain interprets as real. That there is an awareness of our cognitive faculties does not imply the existence of a singular subject (or an "I"). His point is the "I" we think of as ourselves is not a singular coherent thing, but a complex network of various brain functions.
@MrAtheism33 What does the word "illusion" mean if you use it to refer to the self? surely everything that comes from the self, ie everything it experiences, the entire world must be an illusion, so the word becomes meaningless.
@alienzen "What does the word "illusion mean if you use it to refer to the self?"
By "illusion" Dennett doesn't mean "fake". By illusion, Dennett means an "interpretation." In order to make sensory processing more manageable, the brain interprets it's countless neuronal processes as part of a stable and singular self. This makes our conscious life more energy efficient and manageable. Our "self" is a short summary of an otherwise two million page book.
@MrAtheism33 What does the word "illusion" mean if you use it to refer to the self? surely everything that comes from the self, ie everything it experiences, the entire world must be an illusion, so the word becomes meaningless.
@MrAtheism33@MrAtheism33 What does the word "illusion" mean if you use it to refer to the self? surely everything that comes from the self, ie everything it experiences, the entire world must be an illusion, so the word becomes meaningless.
You can't see everything that's happening in the brain by looking at it from a third person perspective. You can only see the red stripe in the brain if the brain is yours.
lookatmepleasesir 7 months ago
@lookatmepleasesir
We don't have the technology that gives us 100% knowledge of the brain. What Dan is saying is that if we did have this knowledge, then that would necessarily include all the information of what the 1st person subject would feel as well, as well as a lot of information that the 1st person subject does not have access to.
If we had complete 3rd person knowledge of someone's brain, maybe we could make a machine that uses this to give someone else the 1st person experience.
homerj7g 7 months ago
The point wasn't that someone else can see the red stripe automatically by looking at someone else's brain, but that the information is in there. Dan is saying you could potentially extract that information and determine scientifically what it means. This means that the information is not private. While the 1st person has the most immediate access to his own experiences, but he is not the only person to potentially have access to it once technology improves.
homerj7g 7 months ago
Unfortunately everything in that image and screen is roatating, buzzing and not still. I wish I could shrink this man down to the size of the nucleus of an atom where the orbit of a proton would be roataing him at a Km of a distance out.
VarvaraBell 7 months ago
The flat thing is funny, kept seeing it for a few mins afterwards.
mrmartinmartin 1 year ago
Dennett obviously doesn't know how afterimages work. We *are* seeing the colors negated by the photoreceptors in our eyes. How can anyone take him seriously on this subject when he gets something that elementary wrong?
He also conflates our perceptions with our *interpretations* of those perceptions. Phenomenal consciousness is perceptual experience, not cognitive interpretation. Again, how can he overlook something so elementary?
I think it's confirmation bias.
balancingman 1 year ago
@balancingman Beginning with such a dismissive tone suggests your impatience not his ignorance. He is giving an hour-long talk. He has many books, and dozens of peer reviewed articles on these matters... your incharitable/hasty reading does neither you, nor this community, much good. The whole section on diffusive computation indicates he's dealing with interpretation. Percepts are neurally encoded in a language we don't speak. Color fatigue DOES show that what seems not white IS white.
dionysus523 1 year ago
@balancingman
He's making the point that we are not seeing any "red object" in space. It is not there, but we are made to believe in our stream of consciousness that we HAVE seen a red object. When, as you say, there is no red object, but rather our mind is tricked by the inhibitory signals from the photoreceptors to make us believe a flag is there when it is really a white screen.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33 but it looks like an after image to me, not a red object in space
lookatmepleasesir 7 months ago
@lookatmepleasesir How do you characterize what an after image "looks like"? The point is that an after image "seems" to exist in space...on the screen. You are not taking into account that you already know what an after-image is and how it works. Thus, you can distinguish between what seems to be an after image and what seems to be a permanent red object.
MrAtheism33 7 months ago
As far as I know he is wrong about there being nothing causing the red stripes.
There is nothing outside on the screen causing the red stripes, but there is an afterimage effect on the retina and this is what you see. In other words it is not nothing; it is residual retinal activity this is communicated to the visual cortex and 'seen' as faint red stripes.
I think this guy is a bit of a magician himself.
Drastam 1 year ago
@Drastam, that might explain the red in your eye, but what happens then when your eyes are closed and you're just remembering something that's red. Where is the red in that case?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts
In visual imaging with the eyes closed the visual cortex is usually active; but there is also a form of spatial imaging that involves the parietal lobe. All this has been demonstrated using fMRI scanners
By the way, to be mistaken about an optical illusion one must be conscious of the illusion? No?
Drastam 1 year ago
@Drastam, I'd say no. They need to be conscious it's an illusion in order to realize what they thought they saw isn't there. If unaware's they just experience whatever effect it was without any awareness of the discrepancy between their experience and the external world. That's not quite the same as being mistaken, in my opinion because we already know every part of our experience is an illusion of sorts. There are no actual hard surfaces in our universe, for example. Only force fields.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts
So do you believe him...ie that you are not conscious?
Drastam 1 year ago
@Drastam, but I don't know how to interpret that question. Do I believe that my experience of consciousness is no different in nature than my experience of colors? Yes. Do I believe it means I don't have a soul? No. I get the feeling that I do, but that it's made out of lots of tiny robots. I think we are a sophisticated mammal who's minds have been effectively hijacked by parasitic memes that drive us like robots to copy themselves. We're "along for the ride" rather than active participants.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts The experience of colour is a conscious experience...and it seems to me in conscious experience there is the known (colour) and the knower - awareness and that of which it is aware.
As to memes and the personal mind I agree with you...but it is possible, I believe, to gain a level of agency.
Drastam 1 year ago
@Drastam, But the colors we see don't exist. Most don't even correspond to particular wavelengths of light, but mixtures of several, that we experience as pure. It proves we're only seeing a creation of our own minds--a fantasy only useful by virtue of the way it is mapped onto the underlying physical stimulus. I think Dennett is saying that what we experience as consciousness is a similar thing: an illusory image created by projecting our actually thought processes into a simpler ordered space.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts
Consciousness IS the experiencing...illusory and real experiences are equally conscious experiences. No consciousness, no experience.
The true nature of our conscious experience and its relation to the underlying physical reality, is another matter. I agree, perception is a mental construction...but that does not make it any less conscious.
Drastam 1 year ago
@Drastam, But then how are you in any disagreement with Dennett? In essence you both seem to be saying "consciousness is just what we call the process of experiencing the mapping of our preprocessed sensory input onto the internal representations for prior experiences that exist in our minds." (And noting that some of those inputs are actually the "outputs" of preceding moments's consciousnesses.) Does that pretty much sum up what you believe is going on?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I dont agree with Dennett. He says there is no such thing as subjective consciousness. Also he claims there is no essential difference between first and third person experience.
The puzzle of consciousness is not the sensory, perceptual and cognitive processing that our nervous system does; it is that there is awareness of the processes.
The word "experiencing" indicates the hidden subject in the sentence you quote.
Drastam 1 year ago
@Drastam "I dont agree with Dennett. He says there is no such thing as subjective consciousness"
What Dennett actually says in his books is that the phenomenon of subjective consciousness is an illusion that the brain interprets as real. That there is an awareness of our cognitive faculties does not imply the existence of a singular subject (or an "I"). His point is the "I" we think of as ourselves is not a singular coherent thing, but a complex network of various brain functions.
MrAtheism33 7 months ago
@MrAtheism33 What does the word "illusion" mean if you use it to refer to the self? surely everything that comes from the self, ie everything it experiences, the entire world must be an illusion, so the word becomes meaningless.
alienzen 5 months ago
@alienzen "What does the word "illusion mean if you use it to refer to the self?"
By "illusion" Dennett doesn't mean "fake". By illusion, Dennett means an "interpretation." In order to make sensory processing more manageable, the brain interprets it's countless neuronal processes as part of a stable and singular self. This makes our conscious life more energy efficient and manageable. Our "self" is a short summary of an otherwise two million page book.
MrAtheism33 3 months ago
@MrAtheism33 What does the word "illusion" mean if you use it to refer to the self? surely everything that comes from the self, ie everything it experiences, the entire world must be an illusion, so the word becomes meaningless.
alienzen 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAtheism33 @MrAtheism33 What does the word "illusion" mean if you use it to refer to the self? surely everything that comes from the self, ie everything it experiences, the entire world must be an illusion, so the word becomes meaningless.
alienzen 5 months ago