The Inter Mind

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

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,292
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    No, you explain your Mechanism. The Inter Mind is your terminology!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,466
    "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 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,292
    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.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    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".
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,466
    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.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    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
     
  11. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     
  12. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    OK, perhaps the emergent consciousness is a form of matter. Perceptronium.
     
  14. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     
  15. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     
  16. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     
  17. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    We can have Hallucinations but nobody can Explain what they are. That link does not Explain Hallucinations.
     
  18. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Yes, perhaps. But that is still a Speculation not an Explanation.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,292
    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.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,292
    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.
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    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 ) .
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2020
  22. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     
  23. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    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.
     

Share This Page