Where is your experience?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes, part of it - the part that does the input. This is the task of the body, to provide sensory input. The brain is where it all is put together into a subjective experience.

The brain does the processing, but the subjective experience occurs at the senses. We don't notice it, because normally they are so incredible close that the sensation becomes as important as the belief. The clarify, the sensation is that you are at your senses location. Your belief is that you are at your brain, which is equivalent (in this sense) to what made Aristotle believe that his consciousness was at the heart.

This is where this analogy reaches its limits. A brain is more than just a cpu, it is also a RAM and hard drive. Obviously brain has evolved to deal with sensory input, so I honestly don't know what would happen to a brain that was born without any sense data at all. But a brain that already has some data, it has no need for a body (except to keep him alive, but in this hypothetical that's already covered). Take isolation tanks for example. The reduction of sensory input does not lower the consciousness, in fact, if anything, it does the opposite. Or a better way to say is it alters it.

Let's say that the brain is the CPU, RAM and HD. Without a programmer, you only have transistors, a motor, some electromagnetic activity, but nothing else. Now, once a programmer (or a user) interacts with it, software, photos, virtual worlds, all emerge.

The experience is based on its content, if by "based" you mean what's it about. The experience itself is something else. It's like a roll of film. The roll itself is not what it projects. So the mind puts together the content of the experience into a roll that it plays to itself.

I'm not buying this. What else? Even Hume couldn't find the self behind the experiences...

I think it's a matter of living in our world to realize that all what you know might not be true (if there is no "really" in your philosophy, as I understand it, is there a "true/truth"?) and your sense input can not be the sole arbiter of real vs non-real. Apart from we having scenarios showing it to be non-functional model for reality (hallucinations, illusions), it would make science nonsensical. This view is solipsistic.

Nope, not truth at all. Just observations and predictive/descriptive models of such observations. What is real are facts, and facts are confirmed observations, nothing more, nothing else. It is not solipsistic as there are others observing, and there is something to observe. In other words, there is "something" we depict as "reality" and there is us (which ultimately are just an appearance of that something, so to speak).

By "where" I presume you meant "when" (otherwise it's a nonsense statement to me). So, simultaneously? I simply don't think that's true. And the original question was, after all, "where", not "when". It takes place in the brain. After the sensory input has reached the brain.

It is where. And, IMO, it is processed at the brain, but it is at the senses location.

Just to be clear, I don't sustain any form of naive realism, as I have pointed out. And these hypotheticals can be brought forward with any philosophy that distinguishes between and acknowledges objectivity and subjectivity.

Understood. I don't entirely agree, as ultimately I don't see any possible distinction between "objective" and "subjective", both are axis of the same dialectic relation.

In that context I see no practical difference between "truth" and "ability to represent the observations".

The difference is that the former requires a territory and the later doesn't.

Ok. The thing here is that you have as many sets of realities as you have subjective observers. I would solve this problem with applying a simple everyday label "lack of knowledge", but according to you there is no such thing, there are only models, each one as true as the next one, they simply represent different observations. Is that correct?

Indeed!!! Wow, not everybody is able to understand

As a sidenote:I haven't read up on model dependent realism, I've been going on only what you've said here. At this point, it seems... impractical.

It might be, but it is interesting nevertheless

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes; from what I've heard of neural networks, and the effects of various kinds of sensory deprivation, I would expect the brain of a conscious subject, when deprived of sensory input, to generate 'phantom' sensations arising from neural 'noise', especially from unsolicited firings of neurons, in first stage afferent processing, deprived of the usual stimulus. So I would expect the subject to continue to be conscious, but in an increasingly confused and disoriented state. For how long this state could be considered conscious, and whether it would stabilise or degenerate, I doubt we'll ever know (how could we, unless the deprivation was reversible?).

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Exactly, they usually coincide, that is why we have so much trouble with this mental exercise. You started ok, your MIND interacts with the world where the sensors and actuators are. This is where YOU are, this is your consciousness. That some processes are needed in order to raise it, and those need more elements, is correct, but your consciousness is where you are.

If that is your take, then I'm apparently using some slightly different definitions for the words involved here. I don't have a lot of time now, but I'll try to explain later how I use the words. We can then argue about which usage is more useful.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I believe there is no evidence for that. For instance, even when someone had an accident and loses body sensations and motor ability, the spine and remaining senses are enough to "feed" the brain the necessary data for keeping it functioning in a recognizable way. Isolation chambers, and the experiments regarding sense deprivation. Are also incomplete and rather primitive ways to attempt to cut sensory input to the brain.

Now, when we do have complete control, apparently the brain "shuts down" the conscious process, like in the well known phenomena called Ganzfeld effect, in which people staring at an undifferentiated white starts at some point to see black (the brain become effectively blind)

Sensory deprivation experiments may be incomplete, but they however suggest that the brain starts to ”fill in” and produce experiencing that wasn’t there before . So, at the very least, the reduction of sensory stimuli does not cause loss in consciousness in a linear or proportional way. It’s not a “dimmer-switch” setup.

Even with the Ganzfeld effect … people consistently report hallucinations. Here’s a direct wiki-quote in regards to that (my emphasis): “The Ganzfeld effect is the result of the brain amplifying neural noise in order to look for the missing visual signals.” How/where does that fit in with your model?

At some point it might be useful to specify what we mean by external stimuli (what kind of stimuli). I think I agree with the general notion that if the brain is completely cut off from any stimulus what so ever, it also means no consciousness. But, by the same token, no stimuli might also mean that the organism is dead. So, at this stage it appears to be tautological. (Nothing is fully autonomous anyway.)

Still, for me the general anesthesia its a better example, as the pathways normally used to feed the brain with information apparently shut down. Nobody understands fully what happens during the anesthesia, but even externally, seems that consciousness is completely gone, the body doesn't show any reflexes. Even corneal reflex is gone (and the brain continues to function, this is why I don't believe, like others in this thread, that the brain alone can have experiences).

Well, you could be right. I’m no expert in the field so I just throw around some ideas. But in deep sleep it seems that it starts with the brain and then we become dissociated from “external” sensory perception. Again, how does that, seemingly brain driven process, fit in your model?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If that is your take, then I'm apparently using some slightly different definitions for the words involved here. I don't have a lot of time now, but I'll try to explain later how I use the words. We can then argue about which usage is more useful.

It can be, definitions change from person to person. We take for granted, that when we use a word, other persons would use it / understand it just like we do. That's a gross mistake, an illusion driven by the belief about we can transmit meaning with a word. But the meaning is always a big social, a bit personal.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sensory deprivation experiments may be incomplete, but they however suggest that the brain starts to ”fill in” and produce experiencing that wasn’t there before . So, at the very least, the reduction of sensory stimuli does not cause loss in consciousness in a linear or proportional way. It’s not a “dimmer-switch” setup.

Agreed. Yes, apparently the brain "needs" the constant feed in order to remain working within parameters. When some isolation exists, apparently some kind of retro-feedback from the normal paths exist, in order for the brain (to maintain the illusion?) to keep working. But nobody knows what would happen if the deprivation was more complete.

Even with the Ganzfeld effect … people consistently report hallucinations. Here’s a direct wiki-quote in regards to that (my emphasis): “The Ganzfeld effect is the result of the brain amplifying neural noise in order to look for the missing visual signals.” How/where does that fit in with your model?

That's another theory, the "neural noise", it could be some kind of retro-feedback and who knows what else. And well, I'm not presuming to have a model, these are just ideas.

At some point it might be useful to specify what we mean by external stimuli (what kind of stimuli). I think I agree with the general notion that if the brain is completely cut off from any stimulus what so ever, it also means no consciousness. But, by the same token, no stimuli might also mean that the organism is dead. So, at this stage it appears to be tautological. (Nothing is fully autonomous anyway.)

You raise a good point

Well, you could be right. I’m no expert in the field so I just throw around some ideas. But in deep sleep it seems that it starts with the brain and then we become dissociated from “external” sensory perception. Again, how does that, seemingly brain driven process, fit in your model?

Thanks for the ideas, fully appreciated. I always enjoy a good debate. Regarding deep sleep I'm unsure about there is no experience, my belief is that we are unable to recall it, but that the experience is still there.

 

[Dancing David]

The processing occurs at the brain, not consciousness. Consciousness occurs where the senses/actuators are.

I disagree.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I disagree.

I know. Nevertheless, you have been presenting arguments for a belief, while I have been presenting nothing but facts.

Let me ask again, if you were in the train, right next to me, what would you say if I asked "where are you"?

 

[Twiler]

I know. Nevertheless, you have been presenting arguments for a belief, while I have been presenting nothing but facts.

Let me ask again, if you were in the train, right next to me, what would you say if I asked "where are you"?

"Here."

 

[Dancing David]

I know. Nevertheless, you have been presenting arguments for a belief, while I have been presenting nothing but facts.

Let me ask again, if you were in the train, right next to me, what would you say if I asked "where are you"?

I hardly consider what you have presented as facts.

The perceptions are a large part of consciousness.

and I happen to disagree with this here
[url="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8234859&postcount=241]"but the subjective experience occurs at the senses"[/url]

The senses mean nothing until the sensations are turned into perceptions. The 'subjective experience' is the perception, not the sensations.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Here."

Exactly, is the only answer. Plain, simple. Everything else is based on "knowledge" not facts.

I hardly consider what you have presented as facts.

Merely because, obviously, you have a different idea about what fact means. I use this definition: A fact is a verifiable observation.

The perceptions are a large part of consciousness.

When we start to talk about "parts" we want to use the same criteria we have used to deal with the objective world. But you can hardly found "parts" in consciousness. You can have more or less consciousness, that I accept, but that thing about parts, no.

and I happen to disagree with this here
The senses mean nothing until the sensations are turned into perceptions. The 'subjective experience' is the perception, not the sensations.

I see where you are coming, still, I don't see the objection. Sure, I reckon that there are different grades of perception, from "raw inputs" (so to speak) to the full human like perception (which includes language and concepts). That said, everything we are aware of, is subjective experience, and both sensations and perceptions (if we are talking about the same meanings) fit right there.

 

[Lowpro]

Exactly, is the only answer. Plain, simple. Everything else is based on "knowledge" not facts.

You define facts like a child thinks Santa is factual because he got presents on Christmas -.-

*headdesk*

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You define facts like a child thinks Santa is factual because he got presents on Christmas -.-

*headdesk*

Err.... no. if you take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact under "Fact in Science" you will read: "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts." And it is a direct quote from: Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge.

So.. maybe, next time, you want to check your facts before moving your head.

 

[Lowpro]

<edited for civility>

Long day -.-

 

[Twiler]

Exactly, is the only answer. Plain, simple. Everything else is based on "knowledge" not facts.

I don't think it's the only answer, but it's as meaningful as any other answer within a philosophical context.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't think it's the only answer, but it's as meaningful as any other answer within a philosophical context.

You are right, and your statement above is absolutely correct, I have to make emphasis in the "within a philosophical context". And so, what I have been trying to express, is that it all depends on what "fact" means, and I wanted to go as far as we humans can in regards of this.

I know, specially in the context of the forum, that "fact" tends to mean (correct me if I'm wrong) something like this:

Scientific endeavor has defined what we account as being real based on "scientific facts". The world is composed by objects, measurable energy fields and forces with certain properties, and science is how we find about the universe and establish universal laws, which can be considered the pillars where objective knowledge is raised. And so, as long as you are based on this model, your responses would be correct and true, because they are based on reality, not on a belief.

That's what, IMO, is the general consensus in this forum.

Well, there are several problems with that approach, and they are not all that apparent at first sight. As I pointed out, since the beginning of the thread, the view above is called "Naive Realism" not in a derogatory sense, but it is just a simple way to see the world, that (and this is surprising for some people) doesn't correspond well to what we know about reality.

My ideas are based in a way more robust model about reality, which is basically equivalent to "Model Dependent Realism" and so, when I choose an appropriate model of what FACT means for that model I have to select the most robust and least controversial there is.

So, yes, of course the question is open to debate (that's why we all are here I guess) and yes we need to properly define the meaning of the words (and concepts) we are using.

 

[Dancing David]

I see where you are coming, still, I don't see the objection. Sure, I reckon that there are different grades of perception, from "raw inputs" (so to speak) to the full human like perception (which includes language and concepts). That said, everything we are aware of, is subjective experience, and both sensations and perceptions (if we are talking about the same meanings) fit right there.

I am saying something else, the visual cortex processes the sensation from the optic nerves this where the perceptions are created. So I am using the word perception as opposed to 'nerve impulses along the optic nerve from the retinal neurons, which would loosely be called transmission from the sense organ'.

So while in common usage 'perception' covers the gamut from sensation to abstracted verbal processes, in the case I am using it more in a technical sense of 'perception'. Now my usage is also close to thirty years out of date.

In my old classes a distinction was made between 'sensation' and perception', sensation (in the case of vision) sensation is the process of the interaction of the photo receptors with photons in the eye, which are partly processed in the retina and then transmitted along the optic nerves.

The 'perception' is the actual creation of the visual field in the visual cortex.

This is true of most sensations (although the vestibular is partly integrative of many senses), your sensations of touch are mapped into an area of the brain that processes the physical sensations. So yes there are sensations that come from the interaction of the cells in the skin with the PNS transmitted to the CNS, but the 'feeling' of something poking you skin is a perception created in the cortex.

So I am saying that in my mental model, the 'subjective experience' of pain is the result the perceptual processing in the cortex. Also it is the visual cortex that creates the visual perception of 'the color purple'.

Which as I have discussed in many threads is dependent upon development and sensations. Now we will learn a lot about this from new advances in things like cochlear implants in people who have had no auditory sensations prior to the implant.

 

[Paul2]

Scientific endeavor has defined what we account as being real based on "scientific facts". The world is composed by objects, measurable energy fields and forces with certain properties, and science is how we find about the universe and establish universal laws, which can be considered the pillars where objective knowledge is raised. And so, as long as you are based on this model, your responses would be correct and true, because they are based on reality, not on a belief.

That's what, IMO, is the general consensus in this forum.

Well, there are several problems with that approach, and they are not all that apparent at first sight. As I pointed out, since the beginning of the thread, the view above is called "Naive Realism" not in a derogatory sense, but it is just a simple way to see the world, that (and this is surprising for some people) doesn't correspond well to what we know about reality.

Can you state one aspect of reality that isn't in correspondence with the model of science you laid out above? I'm not necessarily doubting that you can, I just want to be clear on what you're implying.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I am saying something else, the visual cortex processes the sensation from the optic nerves this where the perceptions are created. So I am using the word perception as opposed to 'nerve impulses along the optic nerve from the retinal neurons, which would loosely be called transmission from the sense organ'.

I have zero objections with that, still, I would say it is an incomplete model as, even taken in to the account the latest research done by neuroscientists like Jack Gallant (who uses fMIR to get outstanding "dreamlike" images just by scanning the brain), the actual "happening" is still a mystery. Good thing is that the advances are there.

So while in common usage 'perception' covers the gamut from sensation to abstracted verbal processes, in the case I am using it more in a technical sense of 'perception'. Now my usage is also close to thirty years out of date.

You will love the findings of Gallant, there is a video about it in an online science magazine.

In my old classes a distinction was made between 'sensation' and perception', sensation (in the case of vision) sensation is the process of the interaction of the photo receptors with photons in the eye, which are partly processed in the retina and then transmitted along the optic nerves. The 'perception' is the actual creation of the visual field in the visual cortex.

I see your point, but, at which stage we become aware of it? Because, and this again is a current debate among neuroscientists, there are different "levels " to awareness, it is not an "on-off" switch. So, I would argue, the moment the photo receptors at the eye detects something, there is no awareness at all, thus no sensation. It is only when the information hits the visual cortex at the back of the brain that sensation occurs. Now, we need also to remember that there are entire families of specialized neurons, some for detection of movement alone, others that only react to some wavelength, and so on. At which point there is something in consciousness, it is still open to debate. That's why I believe there is no need (at least for the purposes of this thread) to separate "sensations" from "perceptions".

This is true of most sensations (although the vestibular is partly integrative of many senses), your sensations of touch are mapped into an area of the brain that processes the physical sensations. So yes there are sensations that come from the interaction of the cells in the skin with the PNS transmitted to the CNS, but the 'feeling' of something poking you skin is a perception created in the cortex.

Yes, and again, I have never argued otherwise, all the processing occurs inside the brain.

So I am saying that in my mental model, the 'subjective experience' of pain is the result the perceptual processing in the cortex. Also it is the visual cortex that creates the visual perception of 'the color purple'.

You can find the Key part (IMO) right there, "is the result"... yes, we agree that we need the source, the senses and the processing for the "subjective experience" to appear. And "the processing" occurs in the brain, that is also a fact.

Now.. the sensation, the "subjective experience" as you call it, even when it is right there processed at the brain... it is "expressed" where the body is, as the senses and the "actuators" are right there.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Can you state one aspect of reality that isn't in correspondence with the model of science you laid out above? I'm not necessarily doubting that you can, I just want to be clear on what you're implying.

That's a tricky question, as it assumes, right from the start, that there is such a thing as an objective reality that has a determinate composition. Most people assume that the physical models about reality, actually represent (for real) how nature operates "in itself".

The big problem with that is that every scientist of the past believed exactly the same about their own models. What changed from the Ptolemaic POV to the Copernican? Only our models.