The Inter Mind

[DaveC426913]

I was limited to 10k words in the OP. But now that it looks like there is no problem with links you should get the bigger picture:

Er, well. Those thousand words are more than sufficient to conclude that piling yet more words on top of them will not fix the problem.

 

[Write4U]

I am completely familiar with that concept. What Explanatory power is there in the statement: "the mind is an emergent phenomenon, greater than the sum of its parts". This smacks of some kind of New Age pseudo reasoning. A lot of people like to just spew this out with no real understanding of what it means. I have read many writings on this over the last 20 years and I admit I don't know what they are talking about. Maybe I missed something. Ok so tell me How is it that the Mind is this Emergent Property? What is the Mechanism?

No, you explain your Mechanism. The Inter Mind is your terminology!

 

[exchemist]

We cannot even begin to talk about the Inter Mind (IM) if we do not at least recognize the existence of a Conscious Mind (CM) separate from the Physical Mind (PM). We do not have to understand exactly what the CM is, but we must at least suspect that it is something. There are six arguments for the Conscious Mind. Here is the first:


1) The first argument is based on an engineering analysis approach where we trace the path of Light perception. The first thing that happens is that Physical Light (PL) enters the Eye and is focused onto the Retina. The instant the PL hits the Retina it activates the Rods and Cones. Various wavelengths of PL will preferentially activate various different Rods and Cones. The PL is absorbed by the Rods and Cones and the PL is no longer PL. What is left is an avalanche of chemical reactions that eventually fires a Neuron that sends a signal away from the Retina and to the Visual Areas (VAs) of the Cerebral Cortex. This happens for millions of Neurons at the same time with the signal from each Neuron bundled into the Optic Nerve. It’s a long journey from the Retina through the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus (LGN) of the Thalamus and to the Visual Areas which are located in the back of the head. During this whole trip from Eye to the VAs we are not dealing with PL anymore but rather this is of course Neural Light (NL). The NL signals eventually arrive at the first Visual Area (V1) get processed and are then sent to the second Visual Area (V2) and on to other Visual Areas V3, V4, V5, and more. All the areas also send signals back to previous Areas to create a giant mish mash of parallel processing that is difficult to completely quantify. All the processing and feedback is also NL since it is correlated with the PL. So all we can really say is that we experience NL not PL. We know when this NL happens that CL happens. The CL cannot be found in the Brain, and maybe someday it will be found there. But for now, we can only speculate that it is in some other Realm or Dimension or Space. I say CL is in Conscious Space (CSp). We can then speculate that there must be a Conscious Mind (CM) that exists in CSp that is experiencing the CL. A similar argument can be made if we trace the path of Physical Sound (PS) to Neural Sound (NS) and then to Conscious Sound (CS).

"Neural Light" sounds bogus and quite unhelpful. Light stimulates the rods and cones and creates an electrochemical signal in the optic nerve. At that point it is not light at all: it is an electrochemical signal, nothing more. That electrochemical signal, after due processing in the optic nerve and the brain, is responsible for the perception, by the functioning brain, of something visual.

The entire brain/conscious mind dichotomy strikes me as resulting from a category error: that of confusing an activity with an entity. The conscious mind is just the rather misleading term we use for the (electrochemical) activity of the brain.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Neural Light" sounds bogus and quite unhelpful. Light stimulates the rods and cones and creates an electrochemical signal in the optic nerve. At that point it is not light at all: it is an electrochemical signal, nothing more. That electrochemical signal, after due processing in the optic nerve and the brain, is responsible for the perception, by the functioning brain, of something visual.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

"Neural Light" is not an informative term; it is an obfuscative term. It takes something straightforward and tosses it in a word salad.

 

[Write4U]

According to neuroscientist Anil Seth:
"Right now, billions of neurons in your brain are working together to generate a conscious experience -- your experience of the world around you and of yourself within it. How does this happen? "
"We're all hallucinating all the time; when we agree about our hallucinations, we call it "reality."

I really like that perspective. It doesn't quite say "how", but it does address "what".

 

[exchemist]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

"Neural Light" is not an informative term; it is an obfuscative term. It takes something straightforward and tosses it in a word salad.

Indeed. Our poster has invented his own terminology quite unnecessarily and, as so often when people do this, it has led him off on a wild goose chase - moreover one in which nobody can talk to him, because they no longer share the same language to express ideas.

 

[Write4U]

Nobody knows what Hallucinations are. We only know they exist.
I Experience Qualia and all Sensory Conscious Experiences, but nobody knows what they are.
That is the question what are they?

Yes we know what hallucinations are, we don't know the exact mechanism by which we experience hallucinations.

Hallucination

A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception. Hallucinations are vivid, substantial, and are perceived to be located in external objective space.

They are distinguishable from several related phenomena, such as dreaming, which does not involve wakefulness; pseudohallucination, which does not mimic real perception, and is accurately perceived as unreal; illusion, which involves distorted or misinterpreted real perception; and imagery (imagination), which does not mimic real perception and is under voluntary control.[1] Hallucinations also differ from "delusional perceptions", in which a correctly sensed and interpreted stimulus (i.e., a real perception) is given some additional (and typically absurd) significance.

Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality — visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

 

[Steve Klinko]

It's quite clear. I means there is no element to consciousness over and above the physical brain itself. In one swell foop, it torpedoes any attempts to search for (or make a model of) any kind of disembodied mind. It declares that- were you to remove the physical gears of the brain itself, the neurons and synapses and other biological components - there would be no mind left.

That vastly reduces the set of valid models for the seat of the mind.



I get the feeling that you like labels. That all you need are a word or two, and you can accept of dismiss a thing.


My advice is to eschew reading authors who don't know what they're talking about, and prefer authors who do.



That is a brave admission.


OK, here's the thing. This thread is in the Alt Theories forum, which has specific rules about what can and can't be discussed. It is about your idea - you defending and us challenging it - and nothing else it is not an open discussion forum for anything anyone else wants to raise. That's why I reported Write4U's side threads so that they were removed.

If you want to have a discussion about the emergent mind, start a new thread in the appropriate forum.

You seem to think the concept of Emergence Explains Consciousness. I say it does not Explain anything. If you want to insist that Emergence Explains Consciousness you will have to show me How. I am very interested in understanding the key Logical Steps to get me from Neurons firing to things like the Emergence of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste. Until you can do that, the Emergence concept is just a Speculation and is no better than my Speculations.

 

[Steve Klinko]

No, you explain your Mechanism. The Inter Mind is your terminology!

You did not read the website so you of course don't understand that the Inter Mind is a Framework that any theory will have to satisfy. The Inter Mind is a Logical necessity, if you read the website. The explanation of Emergence must start with the Neural Activity and then show how the Redness Experience Emerges from that Activity. You cannot just say it happens you need to show how it happens. The Inter Mind will be that aspect of Emergence that is the mechanism for the transformation from Neural Activity to the Experience of Redness. So the Inter Mind could be explained by Emergence if anybody had a Clue How Emergence could operate.

 

[Write4U]

OK, perhaps the emergent consciousness is a form of matter. Perceptronium.

 

[Steve Klinko]

"Neural Light" sounds bogus and quite unhelpful. Light stimulates the rods and cones and creates an electrochemical signal in the optic nerve. At that point it is not light at all: it is an electrochemical signal, nothing more. That electrochemical signal, after due processing in the optic nerve and the brain, is responsible for the perception, by the functioning brain, of something visual.

The entire brain/conscious mind dichotomy strikes me as resulting from a category error: that of confusing an activity with an entity. The conscious mind is just the rather misleading term we use for the (electrochemical) activity of the brain.

Sorry about posting stripped down sections of The Inter Mind. I was trying something different. I can see it was best to just give the link to the whole writeup. Please read the Inter Mind website to get the whole picture: http://TheInterMind.com.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

"Neural Light" is not an informative term; it is an obfuscative term. It takes something straightforward and tosses it in a word salad.

The term Neural Light emphasizes the fact that I am talking about the Neural Activity associated with the processing of Light. When I talk about these things I could say "the Neural Activity associated with the processing of Light" or I could just say "the Neural Light". I like the shorthand better.

 

[Steve Klinko]

According to neuroscientist Anil Seth:
"Right now, billions of neurons in your brain are working together to generate a conscious experience -- your experience of the world around you and of yourself within it. How does this happen? "
"We're all hallucinating all the time; when we agree about our hallucinations, we call it "reality."

I really like that perspective. It doesn't quite say "how", but it does address "what".

All Seth is doing is replacing: "we have Conscious Experiences" with "we have Hallucinations". This gets us no closer to any kind of Explanation. And as I always remind you Max Clowes was saying these kind of things back in the 60s and 70s.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Yes we know what hallucinations are, we don't know the exact mechanism by which we experience hallucinations.

Hallucination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

We can have Hallucinations but nobody can Explain what they are. That link does not Explain Hallucinations.

 

[Steve Klinko]

OK, perhaps the emergent consciousness is a form of matter. Perceptronium.

Yes, perhaps. But that is still a Speculation not an Explanation.

 

[DaveC426913]

You seem to think the concept of Emergence Explains Consciousness.

Not fully, of course.

You asked "What Explanatory power is there in the statement: "the mind is an emergent phenomenon, greater than the sum of its parts?"

As I said, at the very least - it rules out all fanciful ideas of a mind that can be disembodied from the brain. The possibilities of consciousness shrink from some transcendental-universe-spanning-collective down to the 1200 or so cubic centimeters of the physical brain.

 

[DaveC426913]

... I could say "the Neural Activity associated with the processing of Light"

There is no neural activity associated with the processing of light. As Exchemist explained and you ignored.

Light causes molecular changes in the retinae, which are converted to electrical signals. Electrical signals are sent to the brain, and it is electrical signals that are processed, not light.

I like the shorthand better.

And that is why your idea is doomed. Whether through ignorance or mere lazy shortcutting, you fundamentally misrepresent the very mechanics you are trying to explain.

 

[river]

Not fully, of course.

You asked "What Explanatory power is there in the statement: "the mind is an emergent phenomenon, greater than the sum of its parts?"

As I said, at the very least - it rules out all fanciful ideas of a mind that can be disembodied from the brain. The possibilities of consciousness shrink from some transcendental-universe-spanning-collective down to the 1200 or so cubic centimeters of the physical brain.

The Mind is the Life Energy form created from the Brain . The Mind is the evolution of the Brain . ( the Physical Brain to the Energy Brain . Both stay connected ) .

 

[Steve Klinko]

Not fully, of course.

You asked "What Explanatory power is there in the statement: "the mind is an emergent phenomenon, greater than the sum of its parts?"

As I said, at the very least - it rules out all fanciful ideas of a mind that can be disembodied from the brain. The possibilities of consciousness shrink from some transcendental-universe-spanning-collective down to the 1200 or so cubic centimeters of the physical brain.

Your insistence that the Redness of Red, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste must all be in the Physical Brain is merely Speculation without any Scientific proof. You think if you say it enough times that it will eventually be true. Sorry, but people have been reciting your Mantra for a Hundred years and these Sensory Experiences refuse to be pushed into the Brain. I don't Know that they are not in the Brain, but you need to do a better job Explaining how they are in the Brain. You can't just say they are in the Brain, and that is that. Not very Scientific.

 

[Steve Klinko]

There is no neural activity associated with the processing of light. As Exchemist explained and you ignored.

Light causes molecular changes in the retinae, which are converted to electrical signals. Electrical signals are sent to the brain, and it is electrical signals that are processed, not light.



And that is why your idea is doomed. Whether through ignorance or mere lazy shortcutting, you fundamentally misrepresent the very mechanics you are trying to explain.

I thought you would be able to understand that I meant the processing of the signals that are transmitted by the Optic Nerve to the Cortex. Do I have to explain the whole Visual sequence of stages of processing of the Neural Signals from the Retina every time I talk about the later stages of processing in V1, V2, V3, etc.? This is why saying Neural Light is a good shorthand.