SteveKlinko

You cannot know for example if a Blind person is incorporating Visual Experiences in with their Hearing experiences. If they were, then they probably could not possibly know that they are experiencing Conscious Light phenomena with their Auditory Experience. Just a thought, because we cannot know what their Experience is and they cannot properly tell us. Conscious Experiences are not explainable in language. They must be Experienced.

I don't know that but it make sense. I would limit it to any living thing that has a Visual Cortex.

We don't know what the Conscious experience is for Blind people. Blindness is a degenerate case of Vison or non Vision. All we can do for now is explore and figure out what Redness is for normally developed Sighted people that can see Redness. I See Redness but I don't know what it is. It is some sort of Conscious Phenomenon. I say the Conscious Experience of Redness, to emphasize that we are talking about a Phenomenon of the Mind. So how about if I just say Redness. Can you see the Color Red? That's what I'm talking about. I like to say Redness instead of Red. I have found that if I talk about Red that people start talking about Wavelengths of Electromagnetic Light. If I say Redness it makes them stop and think a little Deeper about the Perception of the Red or the Redness of the Red.

You are not representing what I have said correctly. I never said I have a theory for the Screen. My only goal was to to make people think more outside the box by noticing something they probably never noticed before. I always ask what is the Explanation for the Screen. It's probably just some kind of Illusion that our Visual System produces. But it is there. What is your complaint? Are you saying the Screen is not there for you? But the real topic of this thread is not about the Screen. That was a different thread. This is about the Conscious Perception of Redness and the mechanism in the Brain that produces it. Where does the Redness come from? How do Neurons make this Redness happen. It's a simple and direct question. There is no ambiguity to the question. So what is the answer to that?

Ok, what happens in the Prefrontal for Executive Processing that produces Redness? What is the decades of Empirical Data disproves the Conscious Visual Screen? The Screen is unfortunately there for all to See. If you are talking about Redness then what Data disproves the Existence of Redness as a separate Phenomenon from anything we know about Neural Activity? Redness could be all about Neural Activity but until someone Explains how it is inside the Neurons it is more honest to just say that Science does not know what Redness is or how it is produced.

I do depend on you recognizing your own inner Conscious Experiences like Redness or the Conscious Visual Screen to be something worth talking about, and Exploring, and Explaining. Are you saying you still don't know what Redness is? I can work with you some more on that if you like. I frankly cannot figure out what it is that you don't understand about Redness. Do you not See Red? Are you Color Blind?

I fully and completely know how the Visual System works from Retina to Cortex. It's not about simple detection it is about the Conscious Experience or Perception of Redness. Think about the Redness itself. Extract the Perception of Redness from anything you know about Retinas, and Neural Activity. Start with the Redness. Experience the Redness. When you think about the Redness itself it is impossible (at least for me) to push that Redness into the Neurons in any Scientific or Logical way. Neurons fire and the Redness just seems to happen. From all my studies I have concluded that Science has no Explanation for the Redness itself. If it does, what is that Explanation?

I explained how anyone can realize the Screen. The Screen is there. You don't have to Believe it is there. If you follow the steps that I presented you will observe that the Screen is there. It is an object of the Mind. Do you reject objects of the Mind as having any reality? Sorry but the Screen is there and Redness is there to torment the Physicalists on this forum. These Conscious Mind things cannot be argued away, but rather they should be studied and Explained.

Maybe you are more used to the terminology of Qualia. The Conscious Experience of Redness that I am talking about would be the Redness Quale. Yes but Action Potentials etc. are just part of the Neural Processing. But how does the Redness that you See happen. You are saying that I have to accept something on pure Belief. You might also be more used to the terminology of Qualia. So the Redness Experience would be the Redness Quale. I can only assume that Dogs have Conscious Experiences but I cannot say that I know they do. Don't know anything about the Consciousness of Amoebas and Trees, but I would assume they don't.

It all began 20 years ago when I decided it might be fun to understand how Consciousness occurs in the Brain. I decided that Conscious sensory perception, specifically Light and Sound, were the things I would study. I can see Light and I can hear Sound. I eventually narrowed my studies to the Visual Experience. The thinking was that if I could understand more and more how the physical Brain, Eye and Ear actually worked then the Conscious perception of Light and Sound would become obvious. That was naïve. The Brain Physiologists have become pretty good at finding the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but they have hit a brick wall beyond that. Unfortunately, that was my conclusion after 20 years of studying the problem. I started posting on the various Consciousness Forums that I could find to try to understand what other people were thinking on this. Much to my surprise the people on these Forums were very dismissive of the thought that there is something more to Visual Perception than what Science already has discovered. They seemed to think that showing Neural Activity in a particular area of the Cortex, for example for the Visual Input of something Red, was all that was needed to Explain the Conscious Experience of Redness in the Mind. In their way of thinking: The Neurons fire and that Explains it. But in my way of thinking I don't see how just because Neurons Fire, I then have a Conscious Experience of Redness. They always give me all kinds of links to basic Eye Physiology and Brain Physiology and say this Explains it. Then when I say that this is all just the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience they say I'm not reading their links. Well I studied what is in their links and a lot more for 20 years. I maintain that they are ignoring the final and most important step in the Visual Process. That is the actual Conscious Experience of Redness, or the Standard A Tone, or even the Salty Taste. For some reason they are satisfied with saying that the Conscious Experience of Redness is in the Neurons. This seems like pure Belief to me. There is no Chain of Logic that can get you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. They always get angry and rude and basically say that there is something wrong with me because I don't have their Belief. Some, but not many, admit there is no Scientific Explanation at this point in time. I'm interested once and for all to understand what is happening in that final step that might Explain the Conscious Experience of Redness. I like this prototype structure to pose a question, Given: 1) Neural Activity for Red happens in the Brain. 2) "Something" happens with the Neural Activity or as a result of the Neural Activity. 3) A Conscious Experience of Redness happens in the Mind. What "Something" can be put in 2 that would be a Logical Chain of Reasoning to bridge the Gap between 1 with 3? What is that final Step before Conscious Experience? If Redness does not work for you pick another Color, or an Audio Tone, or may be a Taste for this.

They were questioning the existence of the Visual Screen, or in other terms, the Conscious Light Screen. The experiment is: to follow the instructions in my post with regard to finding your Screen. If you follow the instructions are you able to see the Screen? Then, where do you perceive the Screen to be located? Each individual person must prove the existence of the Screen for themselves. I can only give the steps for doing this. But I am interested in the perceptions of people about this. I make no further claims except that the Screen is there embedded in the front of our faces. I don't claim any theories for what it is, so no theories are required from me about that. I am however open to all theories or other proposals of experiments that anyone might have. It may be silly but it is still there staring you in the face. Actually, it is helping you stare out into the external world. I explained exactly how to find your own Conscious Light Screen. It's not a story it is an Experiment that anyone can do. It can have negative results where you don't actually perceive the Screen, but among the vast majority of people I have surveyed over the years there is agreement that this Screen actually appears embedded in front of our faces as I have described. Also, people that were initially scoffers eventually calmed down and performed the steps that I listed and they ultimately also agreed that the Screen is as I said it was.

Did you actually read it? Were you not able to see your own Visual Noise? If you did see it then was it not embedded in the front of your face? If not, then where was this Noise located for you? I'm interested in all the different experiences that people might have. Wasn't this at least a pretty cool exercise?

If you still don't understand it, then all I can say is I gave it my best try. Don't you think it was at least a pretty cool observation? Did you really not see the Visual Noise, and wasn't it apparently embedded in the front of your face? If not, then where was the Noise located for you. I'm still compiling data on this so I would be happy to get your experience of this.

We do not See things in the external World, but rather we Detect things by using internal Conscious processes that we are born with. We all have a personal Conscious Light Screen (CLS) that we use to detect what is happening in the external World. All the Conscious Light of your Visual Experience is painted onto that Screen. If we try to describe where this CLS is located it seems to be embedded in the front of our faces in some way. The CLS is vaguely horizontally rectangular with ambiguous edges that are hard to locate exactly. The screen seems to just fade into nonexistence at the borders. But wherever you look, that screen is there showing you with Conscious Light what is in the scene you are looking at. To understand this better close your eyes and observe what you See. At first there may be various After Images that represent remnants of what you were looking at, but eventually these fade away. What is left is not totally black. Note that you might have to put your hand over your eyes if you are in a bright place in order to cut off external Light from leaking through your eyelids. Most people will notice a background that has a vague grainy noise almost like the video snow noise that used to appear on old analog TVs. Let's call this Conscious Light Noise (CLN). It is due to random Retinal and Cortical firings. CLN really is the background noise in your Visual detection system. Most people easily perceive that this CLN, and possible After Images, are close to the front of their faces. If you move your head around you will See the CLN, and After Images, move around with your head to keep them in front of your face. If you move your eyes up, down, left, or right, the CLN and After Images will seem to be displaced a little in those directions but will still basically be located in front of your face. It is interesting to note that After Images will always look close even if the scene element that caused the After Image is far away. Now you know where your CLS is located. Of course this is probably only an apparent Location because the CLS is a Conscious Mind phenomenon and is not constructed from any Physical Material that can be Located anywhere. However, it sure seems to be Embedded in the front of our faces. When you open your eyes the scene that you are looking at is painted onto your CLS and it is harder to perceive that the Conscious Light making up the image is still close to your face. Your Visual system tries to give you the illusion that there are things that are far away and things that are close. If you look through only one eye the depth illusion is less pronounced. But the Conscious Light that the scene is painted with is actually still located close to your face and is at the same distance as the CLN. The illusion of distance is absolutely necessary for moving around in the World. It should be mentioned that the things and scenes you See while Dreaming are painted onto your CLS. If you try to imagine some object, you will see a grainy, hazy, version of that object painted onto your CLS. If you rub your eyes, the Lights that you might See are painted onto your CLS. The CLS is a general purpose Visual Display Device for all Conscious beings, whether Human or Animal. The Light that is painted onto your CLS is your Light. We walk around all day long looking at our CLSs which are embedded in the front of our faces. We cannot See the CLSs of other people but if we could it would be as if everyone was wearing Virtual Reality goggles. But instead of goggles it would be Conscious Light Screens. We think we are Seeing the external World directly but we (our Conscious Minds) are always just looking (in some Conscious way) at our own CLSs.

I completely understand Neurological Function, plus I understand that Neurological Function does not Explain Conscious Sensory Experience. The links that have been posted are about the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience, but never about actual Conscious Experience itself. It has been known for a Hundred years that there is Neural Activity correlated with Conscious Experience but nobody has ever Explained how the Neural Activity leads to a Conscious Experience of something like Redness. Wavelength and Saturation are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Please at least try to understand the issue.