The Inter Mind

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Steve Klinko, Dec 18, 2020.

  1. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    This paper will present an alternative perspective for thinking about how Consciousness might occur in the Mind. The prevailing Philosophical and Scientific view, that Consciousness is just an illusion, seems to me to be totally unscientific. When they say that Consciousness is just an Illusion they are saying that Consciousness does not really exist. Have they ever actually seen Light or heard Sound? Many other Scientists will simply say that Consciousness is in the Neurons and that is that. They will say there is nothing else to Explain here. They cannot explain how Consciousness is in the Neurons but rather they just Believe that to be the case. A growing number of Scientists and Philosophers at least admit that they do not know. They have produced such concepts as the Explanatory Gap by Joseph Levine in Materialism and Qualia, the Hard Problem and the Easy Problem by David Chalmers in The Conscious Mind, and the concept of sensory Qualia by Clarence Irving Lewis in Mind and the World Order.

    The state of the art in Brain Physiology these days can describe how electromagnetic waves (Physical Light) hitting the Retina cause signals to be generated in Nerve paths that travel from the Eye through the Brain and to the Visual Cortex in back of the head. A vast amount of parallel processing occurs and specific areas of the Visual Cortex will fire for various different aspects of the Light scene that is being viewed. Some Neurons will fire for straight lines, some Neurons will fire for various specific Colors, some Neurons will fire for image motion, and other Neurons will fire for any number of other specific aspects of the Light scene. These are the Neural Correlates of Consciousness for Light perception as described by Christof Koch in The Quest for Consciousness.

    The problem is that the Brain is an electro-chemical machine and nowhere during all the processing that goes on can you find the actual Conscious perception of Light. I like to say that when you have a Conscious perception of Light that you are seeing Conscious Light. I also want to emphasize the distinction between Physical Light (PL) and Conscious Light (CL). The PL is electromagnetic waves which are always black and colorless, but it is the CL that we actually perceive and see. The CL is a surrogate for the PL.

    This distinction between PL and CL must be understood completely and fully. We can even say that before Consciousness there was no Light on the Planet, just electromagnetic waves. This distinction should seem obvious to people but I have found that many people just don’t get it. This paper will attempt to make this distinction more plausible and understandable.

    Philosophers like to call CL the Light Qualia. My spell checker does not even know the word Qualia. I like the symmetry and intuitiveness of saying PL and CL. I also like to say that PL exists in Physical Space (PSp) and CL exists in Conscious Space (CSp). We can also talk about Physical Sound (PS) which consists of pressure waves in the air and Conscious Sound (CS) which is the Sound that we experience in CSp.

    The Light or Sound that we have always experienced is CL or CS not PL or PS. PL or PS exists in PSp and CL or CS exists in CSp. In talking about CSp it is assumed that it is not a space like our physical three dimensional Universe but it is certainly a different realm or reality. I decided that saying Conscious Realm was too spooky and maybe misleading so I’m going to stick with CSp. CSp may ultimately be recognized to be an aspect of PSp but at this point it is better to keep it distinct. I think that eventually, CSp will be recognized as a completely different thing than we can imagine today.

    I would like to refer to the Brain as the Physical Mind (PM). I would also like to refer to the Thing that experiences the CL or CS as the Conscious Mind (CM). The CM contains your personal Conscious “I” or "Self". Using these definitions and abbreviations, I would like to present the following diagram to show what we know so far about the Conscious perception of Light.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    The PM is defined to consist of the Brain and all connected sensory devices, like Eyes and Ears. The Retina of the Eye is acknowledged to be made up of specialized Neurons, so it is an actual component of the PM. It’s easy to see why the PL arrow is connected directly to the PM.

    The instant PL hits the PM it is not PL anymore, but rather it is converted into Neural Activity that is transmitted to the various Visual areas inside the PM. Since the Neural Activity occurs in the Visual areas of the PM and the Neural Activity is correlated with the PL, I like to call this particular Neural Activity, Neural Light (NL). The diagram shows that even though the NL is correlated with the PL it is not CL yet. The CL that we actually perceive is correlated with the NL and therefore with the PL. The heart of the problem is that CL cannot be found in the PM by studying the NL. We are sure we know two things: 1) when NL occurs in the PM 2) there is correlated CL occurring in the CM. Both of these are also correlated with the original PL. There is an analogous argument for PS, Neural Sound (NS), and CS.

    We have never Seen the PL. We have only Seen the CL. The CL is correlated with the NL which in turn is correlated with the PL. The PL is just some electro-magnetic phenomenon that can stimulate NL. If you rub your eye the right way you will see lights. Rubbing your eye can stimulate NL which results in a CL experience.

    Now think about the CL experience you have while dreaming at night in your bedroom where there is almost no PL. You could say that Dreams are made out of CL. If it's not CL then what is it? The one thing we can say for sure is that this Dream Light is certainly inside of us.

    Also think about the CL experience of After Images, where you continue to see a remnant of the scene you were looking at even after you close your eyes. Obviously we can and do experience CL without PL. We have always seen our own CL but we did not know it was ours. This should become more understandable after reading the two Arguments sections.

    I take the position that the PM is an electro-chemical machine that exists in PSp. I will speculate that the PM has no consciousness in and of itself. I will also speculate that the CM exists in a separate reality and I say that the CM exists in CSp. I justify these speculations given the fact that Science is getting nowhere assuming that Consciousness has to be inside the Neurons.

    But how does the NL in the PM get converted to CL that the CM can use? Somehow the CM must monitor the NL in the PM and then generate the CL for the CM. I propose that there must be some other Mind component that monitors the NL in the PM and converts this into the CL that the CM experiences. I call this other Mind the Inter Mind (IM), because it is an interface between the PM and the CM. From these definitions we can now draw the following diagram for the Conscious perception of light.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    This diagram is for the Light path and it compresses many complicated things into a simple Triplistic or Triple Mind model that is easily remembered and conceptualized. I like to call it the Inter Mind Model (IMM) to emphasize the central role that the IM plays. Forget about Dualism this is Triplism. I think the IM is but yet another thing that we do not know. It is probably counterintuitive but I think the introduction of this new unknown might actually help us understand the other unknowns in the whole Mind problem. We need to at least know what it is that we don't know. I believe the IMM will provide a solid Framework for the next step in the exploration of Consciousness.

    The IM could be a part of the PM or the CM or it could stand alone as a separate Mind. Whatever the case may be there must be something somewhere that has the functionality of the IM. if the IM is found to be an aspect of the PM then that aspect should be called the IM aspect of the PM. NL does not turn into CL all by itself. Even if everything is eventually found to be located in the PM, the functional stages of the diagram must still be true.

    According to the IMM: PL is converted into NL by the PM in PSp, and then NL is converted into CL by the IM, and then CL is what is actually perceived by the CM in CSp. But the PL, NL, and CL are three very different kinds of phenomena related to the experience of Light. The PL is Electro-Magnetic Energy, the NL is Neural Activity in the Visual areas, and the CL is the Thing that we actually perceive.

    This means that we all have our own Personal CL that we use to guide us while moving around in the world. I have my own CL and every other person on the planet has their own CL. No one sees PL but only their own Personal CL. I have my Light, you have your Light, we all have our own Light. We don't really See in the way we think we do, rather we examine our CL to determine what we are looking at. So instead of asking the question: "What do you see?", we should ask: "What does your CL show you?".

    Note that the IMM shows that the IM presents the CL to the CM but the process of how this happens is not known. The CL is not PL so we should not expect that the CM will need some CSp Retina to perceive it leading to an infinite regression of other forms of Light and other forms of Retinas. The CM is the end point of the perception chain even if we do not yet understand how the CL is experienced by the CM.

    **The link: http://TheInterMind.com shows the full text of The Inter Mind concept.**
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2020
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,937
    You might want to post just a few assertions at a time, and defend them as you go.

    Can you provide a trustworthy link where scientists or philosophers are actually saying consciousness 'doesn't exist'? I suspect you are freely interpreting the term "illusion" and projecting your own conclusions onto hypothetical others.

    I suggest that the prevailing concept of consciousness is that it is not, in-and-of-itself, a distinct entity separate from the electrochemical construct of the brain. Rather, it is an "emergent property" of the brain. That's a better choice of terms.

    Light is - by definition - electromagnetic waves, of a certain range of frequencies.

    If there are EM waves between about 440 and 770 nm in the atmosphere, then there is - by definition - light. This is irrefutable.

    Can you clarify your definition of "consciousness"?

    Do only humans have consciousness, or do animals have it too?

    More specifically, do primitive proto-fish that lived, say, 500 million years ago have consciousness?

    If not, then, by your logic, they also don't perceive colour.

    And if that's true, how do you explain the ubiquitous use of colour camouflage in nature? Why would creatures adapt a colouring that matches their background if it didn't impart a survival advantage by rendering their enemies unable to see them?
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,261
    This poster has just been banned from the science forum . net, for repetitively opening new threads on his pet subject.

    So now he shows up here. Take cover: incoming.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,937
    No real danger of such disciplinary action here...
     
    Steve Klinko likes this.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    They don't .
    Except for a very few species like Man or the Octopus or Cuttlefish, perhaps the Chameleon, the use of camouflage is not a product of choice but of natural selection.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,937
    Nobody said anything about choice except you.

    Deer adapted to a fawn colouring, blending into their surroundings.
    Tigers adapted to a striped pattern, blending into tall grass.
    In both cases, colour camouflage evolved as a survival advantage.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    Sorry, sounded like you were using "adapt" as a verb. Something that creatures would do, like grazing.

    My mistake...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  11. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Maybe.

    You highlighted only the last part of the sentence. Of course I am interpreting, and I don't see any ambiguity that I am doing that.

    I had to cut out a lot of the text of this to get it to fit under the 10k word limit. Maybe I cut the part where I say: "Many other Scientists will simply say that Consciousness is in the Neurons and that is that. They will say there is nothing else to Explain here. They cannot explain how Consciousness is in the Neurons but rather they just Believe that to be the case."


    I'm not denying that. I just make the distinction between the Electromagnetic Light, which I call Physical Light, and the Phenomenon that your Mind experiences, which I call Conscious Light.

    When I talk about Consciousness, am talking about Conscious Sensory Experiences or Perceptions. I am talking about the Qualia, if you like that term.

    Nobody can measure Consciousness in another being. Animals cannot talk about their Conscious Sensory Experiences like humans can. I can only assume Animals have Conscious Sensory Experiences by observing their actions. I am lead to believe they Experience Pain by how the act. They seem to really like Sex. Etc.

    I have no knowledge of what the Conscious Experience of Proto-Fish could be. They might not have Color Experiences but they still might in some more primitive way be able to distinguish Colors. It won't be a Color Experience. Machines can distinguish Colors but they certainly do not have Color Experiences.

    I don't quite understand the Color Camouflage question. If it is the Color that is important in the Camouflage then the Predator probably has Color Experiences in order to be fooled. But this is a more advanced question than you probably realize. We don't even know what our own Color Experiences are. We will be able to answer all these kinds of questions if we could somehow measure what another creature, Human or Animal, is Experiencing.
     
  12. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    My Pet Project is studying Conscious Sensory Experiences. The moderators deny the Existence of Conscious Sensory Experiences on the Forum. So to them talk of Conscious Sensory Experiences is not allowed. The only reason I posted several time is that they always killed every thread attempt that I made to start a conversation on Conscious Sensory Experiences. I think my Pet Project is a long neglected issue for Science.
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,261
    But they think it is tripe? I see. Hmm.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,937
    Well, it would sure help your credibility if you used the existing lexicon rather than making stuff up.

    When you say physical light, you probably mean something akin to EMR.
    When you say conscious light, you probably mean something akin to colour perception and qualia.

    You've used each of these terms at least once already, so you know them - just keep using them, rather than making up your own lexicon.

    The problem with making up your own lexicon is that you may have slightly different ideas and characteristics of your terms, that readers don't take for granted. Without a common language, there is no meeting of minds.


    You even list a perfect example of the problem, here:

    Notice we're on post 12, and we're still just sorting out what you're trying to say. This could be avoided if you rewrite your thesis using the common lexicon.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2020
    exchemist likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    Question: What's the difference between the "Mind" and the "Inter mind" ?

    "Making up your mind" is something you do with the Mind or the Inter Mind?....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2020
    LazarusLong likes this.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    LOL, I think I'll stay out of this thread..........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,488
    Write4U likes this.
  18. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    I can appreciate your complaint, but you're just complaining about terminology even though you seem to know what I am saying. Physical Light is Electromagnetic Light. It is the Light from Physics. Conscious Light is the Light that you Experience in your Conscious Mind. I use this terminology to help people make this distinction. I have found that if I say it is Light Qualia, that nobody knows what I mean. You sound like you know, but most people will become completely lost with that terminology. It's good for Philosophers but not so good for the average person trying to understand. When I say Color Perception in my posts, what I usually get is a bunch of links to Retinal Physiology and talk about Wavelengths of Light. I want to emphasize that the thing I am talking about exists as a Conscious Mind Phenomenon. There is a symmetry and balance to saying Physical Light and Conscious Light. Then when Neural Light is explained it becomes a beautiful three step process for the Visual Sense. Remember that Neural Light is defined as the Neural Activity specifically involved in the Visual Process. So we have that the Physical Light is converted to Neural Light and the Neural Light is converted to Conscious Light. The unknown Process is the conversion from the Neural Light to the Conscious Light. If this terminology bothers you and you feel like you cannot proceed with it then I apologize, but it is what it is and I still like it. I think that it ultimately will be the best terminology for this.
     
  19. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Good suggestion if we in fact have agreed to a language for the study of Consciousness. We are at the stage in Consciousness Science (if there is such a thing) where we are just beginning to bang out that terminology. I think my terminology is Logical and Descriptive, and will ultimately be used to talk about Consciousness.
     
  20. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    You are messing with me. But that's ok. Have fun.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,937
    This is demonstrably failing, by your own admission:



    Do you want to have a discussion with people who know what qualia are? Or do you want to have a discussion with people who do not know what are qualia are?


    Then you are talking to the wrong people.

    Talk to people who know about colour perception.

    But making up your own terms just makes a hash for everyone.


    Best for whom? Best for you? Or best for the people you're trying to reach?
    (That's a rhetorical question. The answers are: You, Yes, No - respectively.)
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    You may want to check out this astounding false mental interpretation of color.
    It is impossible to avoid the brain's incorrect translation.
    Look at the following figure:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Figure 0.1. The chessboard illusion: areas A and B on the board have the same shade of gray (due to Edward H. Adelson)
    http://www.foundalis.com/phi/WhyTimeFlows.htm

    Until you fully understand how the brain creates the false "experience" as part of a survival strategy, you will always be grasping at straws.

    A and B are not fooling you. Your mind is fooling you (for good reason).
    That's the nature and purpose of qualia, survival!
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2020
  23. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    I have seen this many times. It is a good illusion. The false Experience is no more strange than the Dream Experience. We need to understand how we can have any Experience in general before we explore what specific Experiences are. How does Experience happen in our Minds given Neural Activity? Doesn't matter if it's a false or a true Experience.
     

Share This Page