Levels Of Understanding For The Human Visual Experience

[SteveKlinko]

Levels Of Understanding For The Human Visual Experience

1) Naive Realism Level: When we were young and Naive we looked out at the World and assumed that the Visual Experience that we were Seeing was what the External World actually looked like. We did not think Deeper about what this Visual Experience actually could be. It was so simple then, we just looked out into the World and thought we Saw the World as it was. As we examined our Visual Experiences we could See that the different Objects out there had different Colors. We thought that the Colors were a direct Property of the things that we were Looking at. At this Level we thought our Visual Experience was painted with all the different Colors of all the Objects that are out there.

 

2) Physical Light Level: Most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask a question: "How does this Visual Experience actually happen"? It all seemed so simple when we were at the Naive Realist Level, but we have Learned, Matured, and began Thinking and Questioning things. We took some Science courses and found out that we do not directly See Objects in the World but rather we See the reflected Light from these Objects. This was a fantastic new Realization. Now when we observed our Visual Experience we could understand that we were merely Seeing reflected Light from Objects in the External World. We realized that our Visual Experience was now painted with all the possible Physical Light (Electromagnetic) Wavelengths that our Eye could Detect. From this Perspective we thought we were Seeing the actual Physical Light that was hitting the Retina. We thought that the Colors were a direct Property of the Electromagnetic Physical Light that we were Looking at. We were closer to Reality because at least we now understood that we were not Seeing the actual Objects anymore.

 

3) Neural Light Level: Even though we knew it was the Physical Light, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask a question: "How does this Visual Physical Light Experience actually happen"? It all seemed so simple when we were at the Physical Light Level, but we have Learned more, Matured more, and began Thinking and Questioning things even more than ever. We took some courses in Eye Physiology and Brain Physiology which made us realize that we don't directly See the Physical Light that seemed to make up our Visual Experience. We found out that the Visual experience that we See requires Neural Activity. This was again a fantastic new Realization. We were Seeing the result of Neurons Firing. From this Perspective we thought we were Seeing the effect of our own internal Neurons Firing. We were closer to Reality because at least we now understood that we were not Seeing the actual Physical Light anymore. Our Visual Experience was still painted with all the Colors that we have always Seen but we now knew that these Colors were generated Internally by our Brains and we understood that all these Colors were never something that was External. The Colors became Properties of Neural Activity. The Light was now understood to be something Inside of us.

 

4) Conscious Light Level: When we were at the Naive Realist Level it made sense that our Visual Experience was actually showing us what the External World looked like. When we were at the Physical Light Level it made sense that our Visual Experience was actually showing us what the Physical Light looked like. But when we attained the Neural Light Level there was not that same feeling of it making Sense. In fact, it made no Sense that the Neural Activity produced the beautiful panoramic Color Visual Experience that we all have. Where, after all, were all those Colors coming from inside the Neurons? How could Neurons Firing have a Property of Color? There was a problem here because we could not find any courses to take that would answer this latest question. Science had effectively hit a Brick Wall on this question. There was an Explanatory Gap at the Neural Light Level. It was clear that our Visual Experience was still that panoramic, Color filled, Experience that we always had. The Light was still there, being generated by the Brain in some way. But there was no Chain of Logic that could take us from Neurons Firing to the Visual Light Experience. It became an item of Faith that Science would figure out what the required Chain of Logic would be. Humanity has tried for a hundred years to figure this out. But there is nothing to show for the effort. All we know is that Neural Activity happens and then a Visual Light Experience happens. It all seemed so simple when we were at the Neural Light Level, but we have Learned more, Matured more, and began Thinking Deeper about the Visual Experience. Even though we knew it was the Neurons, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask the question: "How does this Visual Light Experience actually happen from the Neural Activity"? It became clear that new ways of Thinking about the problem needed to be developed. This is what Science is supposed to do. This is how Science progresses. But instead, a lot of Scientists are still trying to push the Visual Light Experience back into the Neurons, but the Visual Light Experience refuses to be pushed into the Neurons. The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way. The Visual Light Experience simply hovers and is embedded in the front of our faces. We sense that it must be some kind of Conscious Experience concept that happens in some kind of Conscious Mind concept. But we cannot know that for sure. It just seems to be our best Speculation for progressing forward. What we are Seeing is our own Internal Conscious Light. We have never Seen an actual Object out in the World, nor do we See the actual reflected Light from an Object, nor do we See actual Neural Activity. Instead, we have always only Seen our own Internal Conscious Light. It is this Conscious Light (not Physical Electromagnetic Light) that is generated by our Internal Brain/Mind mechanism. 

[Bufofrog]

I was with up to number 4.

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

Where, after all, were all those Colors coming from inside the Neurons? How could Neurons Firing have a Property of Color?

Our visual system detects 3 different wave lengths of light and our brains process the input to the colors we see.  

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

What we are Seeing is our own Internal Conscious Light.

What does that mean?

Edited December 5, 2020 by Bufofrog

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

This isn't Philosophy, this is rewriting some mainstream science, so I'm moving this to Speculations. Please support your arguments and assertions with evidence, and answer any clarifying questions posed. 

 

[SteveKlinko]

On 12/5/2020 at 4:33 PM, Bufofrog said:

I was with up to number 4.

Our visual system detects 3 different wave lengths of light and our brains process the input to the colors we see.  

What does that mean?

So how do our Brains process the input to the Colors that we see?

The Colors that we See are generated inside the Brain/Mind. Since these Colors are inside the Brain they are not Physical Light but they are the result of some sort of Brain/Mind process. These internal Colors are surrogates for the Physical Light Colors. I call the External Light Colors the Physical Light because it is part of what Physics can deal with. I call the Internal Colors the Conscious Light because it is what the Conscious Mind ultimately experiences. Let's talk about the Color Red. The Red Physical Light has a Property of Wavelength, and the Red Conscious Light has a Property of Redness. The Red Physical Light has no Property of Redness and the Red Conscious Light has no Property of Wavelength. You have never Seen Physical Light , you have only ever seen your own Conscious Light. If you rub your Eyes and see flashes of Light, that is pure Conscious Light with no corresponding Physical Light. The distinction between Physical Light and Conscious Light is the most important concept for the realization of Level 4 in the OP.  

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

If you rub your Eyes and see flashes of Light, that is pure Conscious Light with no corresponding Physical Light.

What you perceive as light is just an electrical signal sent to the optic nerve. Doesn't matter what causes the electrical signal. Can be light, touch, sound, and others.

25 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

These internal Colors are surrogates for the Physical Light Colors.

And internal 'touch' is just a surrogate for physical touch.

And internal 'smell' is just a surrogate for physical smell.

The brain just interprets stimuli. Vision is nothing special. 

On 12/5/2020 at 2:13 PM, SteveKlinko said:

The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way. The Visual Light Experience simply hovers and is embedded in the front of our faces.

Um, no.

[SteveKlinko]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

Quote

What you perceive as light is just an electrical signal sent to the optic nerve. Doesn't matter what causes the electrical signal. Can be light, touch, sound, and others.

How does the Brain/Mind perceive an Electrical Signal as Light? There is a huge Explanatory Gap in a statement like this.

Quote

 

And internal 'touch' is just a surrogate for physical touch.

And internal 'smell' is just a surrogate for physical smell.

The brain just interprets stimuli. Vision is nothing special. 

 

All three of these things are something very special. There is a huge Explanatory Gap in a statement like "The Brain just interprets stimuli".

Quote

Um, no.

So how do you Explain that beautiful high definition Visual Experience that is always there embedded in the front of your face?

 

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

How does the Brain/Mind perceive an Electrical Signal as Light? There is a huge Explanatory Gap in a statement like this.

I was responding to your comment about rubbing your eyes. You didn't ask me to teach you about photoreceptors and neuroscience.

3 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

So how do you Explain that beautiful high definition Visual Experience that is always there embedded in the front of your face?

I scrubbed my face this morning. There is nothing 'embedded' in the front of it.

[SteveKlinko]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I was responding to your comment about rubbing your eyes. You didn't ask me to teach you about photoreceptors and neuroscience.

I scrubbed my face this morning. There is nothing 'embedded' in the front of it.

My question is not about Photoreceptors and Neuro Science. I have spent many years studying that. When you rub your eyes you can see Light. There is nothing in the study of Eye Physiology or Neuro Science that can explain what that Light is and how it is produced. It is obviously some sort of Conscious Mind Phenomenon that has no explanation. It is David Chalmer's Hard Problem of Consciousness.

There is nothing embedded in front of your face that you can touch. It is a Conscious Mind Phenomenon.

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

I have spent many years studying that. When you rub your eyes you can see Light. There is nothing in the study of Eye Physiology or Neuro Science that can explain what that Light is and how it is produced.

You need to study harder.

Quote

Rubbing your eyes increases the pressure within the eyeball and this pressure activates ganglion cells in the retina in the same way as light does. Your brain doesn’t know the difference and so interprets the activation as though you were seeing light from the world outside.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-do-we-see-stars-when-we-rub-our-eyes/

32 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

There is nothing embedded in front of your face that you can touch. It is a Conscious Mind Phenomenon.

So there is something embedded in the front of my face that I cannot touch?

[SteveKlinko]

36 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You need to study harder.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-do-we-see-stars-when-we-rub-our-eyes/

So there is something embedded in the front of my face that I cannot touch?

I tried studying harder and harder but the Explanatory Gap just became wider and wider until I just had to admit to myself that there was something missing in the current understanding of the Visual Experience. You must still be at Level #3 for understanding the Human Visual Experience. You are probably also a Physicalist, in that you believe you can merely say things like the Neuron Fired or the Photoreceptor was stimulated, and that explains the Conscious Experience that you have in your Mind. Maybe you even deny that there is Conscious Experience. The only thing I can suggest is that rather than studying harder you need to Think Deeper about the Conscious Visual Experience itself.

[Bufofrog]

4 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

I tried studying harder and harder but the Explanatory Gap just became wider and wider until I just had to admit to myself that there was something missing in the current understanding of the Visual Experience. You must still be at Level #3 for understanding the Human Visual Experience. You are probably also a Physicalist, in that you believe you can merely say things like the Neuron Fired or the Photoreceptor was stimulated, and that explains the Conscious Experience that you have in your Mind. Maybe you even deny that there is Conscious Experience. The only thing I can suggest is that rather than studying harder you need to Think Deeper about the Conscious Visual Experience itself.

The photo receptors in your eye send a signal to your brain when a photon of the appropriate wavelength hits the receptor.  Your brain processes that signal as a color.  There is no 'color' outside of your brain, just photons of different wavelengths.  You seem to be saying something more is going on.  What do you think this something is?

[SteveKlinko]

36 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

The photo receptors in your eye send a signal to your brain when a photon of the appropriate wavelength hits the receptor.  Your brain processes that signal as a color.  There is no 'color' outside of your brain, just photons of different wavelengths.  You seem to be saying something more is going on.  What do you think this something is?

The problem is in the statement: "Your brain processes that signal as a color". The statement is of course true but what do you mean when you say it. What is the Brain doing? You can't just say the Brain does this without an Explanation of how the Brain does this. That Explanation is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. When you say that statement, a huge Explanatory Gap arises. What is the Processing that the Brain does? 

[Phi for All]

52 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

I tried studying harder and harder but the Explanatory Gap just became wider and wider until I just had to admit to myself that there was something missing in the current understanding of the Visual Experience. You must still be at Level #3 for understanding the Human Visual Experience. You are probably also a Physicalist, in that you believe you can merely say things like the Neuron Fired or the Photoreceptor was stimulated, and that explains the Conscious Experience that you have in your Mind. Maybe you even deny that there is Conscious Experience. The only thing I can suggest is that rather than studying harder you need to Think Deeper about the Conscious Visual Experience itself.

Filling in the gaps in your knowledge with Stuff You've Made Up is a horrible disservice to yourself. The biggest problem is, since you didn't study what you didn't know and only used what you knew, your explanation makes perfect sense to you, and only you. And it's going to take you forever to see this, because your idea will always give you the answers you want.

[SteveKlinko]

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Filling in the gaps in your knowledge with Stuff You've Made Up is a horrible disservice to yourself. The biggest problem is, since you didn't study what you didn't know and only used what you knew, your explanation makes perfect sense to you, and only you. And it's going to take you forever to see this, because your idea will always give you the answers you want.

You have accused me of not studying something that I need to know. What should I have studied?

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

You have accused me of not studying something that I need to know. What should I have studied?

Science

[SteveKlinko]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Science

That basically insulting reply shows I'm starting to hit a nerve (no pun intended). What in Science Explains the Experience of Redness, or the Experience of the Standard A Tone, or the Experience of the Salty Taste, or the Experience of the Smell of Bleach, or the Feel of a rough surface? You can talk about Neural Activity all you want but Neural Activity cannot Explain these Sensory Experiences. You must take a Deeper look at your own Conscious Sensory Experiences. 

[Phi for All]

29 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

You have accused me of not studying something that I need to know. What should I have studied?

I accused you of nothing. I observed that your explanation is lacking several key mainstream elements, and that seems to have allowed your mind to run off into the weeds to pursue some unphysical options. 

We know that our vision isn't related to consciousness, since the receptors still work when we're asleep. Our brains don't always need our eyes either, since we're capable of tracking targets mentally even though we've taken our eyes off them. If vision were as you say, we wouldn't see the behavior we do when the eye is damaged. What we do see is perfectly in line with predictions made based on photoreception. 

I'm saying that your statement about your explanatory gap is a subjective one. You reached a point where you stopped understanding what you were studying, and started making things up that made more sense to you. Others persevered, and they understand and use the mainstream explanations every day. How does your explanation work better than the ones we have that let us see so much, and so far away?

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

You can talk about Neural Activity all you want but Neural Activity cannot Explain these Sensory Experiences.

Sure it can. You just don't like the answers and have made up your own. Unfortunately you seem afraid to share with us what it is other than something non-physical that is embedded in your face.

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sure it can. You just don't like the answers and have made up your own. Unfortunately you seem afraid to share with us what it is other than something non-physical that is embedded in your face.

I read the "embedded" part as an unfortunate word choice. "Readily available" seems more appropriate, and doesn't have the physical implications. 

Still, the idea that we don't actually see light physically, but instead detect it through some sort of consciousness filter is demonstrably false. But if one studied the eye before studying light, I could see how the misconception can happen.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I read the "embedded" part as an unfortunate word choice. "Readily available" seems more appropriate, and doesn't have the physical implications. 

Still, the idea that we don't actually see light physically, but instead detect it through some sort of consciousness filter is demonstrably false. But if one studied the eye before studying light, I could see how the misconception can happen.

I get the impression he is so overwhelmed by what our brain is doing that he has ascribed something supernatural to it.

I admit to some degree of chain yanking

Edited December 7, 2020 by zapatos

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I get the impression he is so overwhelmed by what our brain is doing that he has ascribed something supernatural to it.

It does almost seem like magic sometimes. I'm getting near to needing cataract surgery, but my eye/brain connection is still amazing to me.

[SteveKlinko]

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Quote

 

We know that our vision isn't related to consciousness, since the receptors still work when we're asleep. Our brains don't always need our eyes either, since we're capable of tracking targets mentally even though we've taken our eyes off them. If vision were as you say, we wouldn't see the behavior we do when the eye is damaged. What we do see is perfectly in line with predictions made based on photoreception. 

I'm saying that your statement about your explanatory gap is a subjective one. You reached a point where you stopped understanding what you were studying, and started making things up that made more sense to you. Others persevered, and they understand and use the mainstream explanations every day. How does your explanation work better than the ones we have that let us see so much, and so far away?

 

You need to take the process of Seeing, something like the Color Red, out to it's furthest stage of processing which is the Experience of the Redness of the Red. There is no further studying that you can do that can explain the Conscious Experience of the Redness. You are completely missing the most important aspect of Seeing. But you say there is no Consciousness aspect involved here. Ironically, the Consciousness aspect is the most important part and is the final stage of the Processing chain for the Human Visual system.

 

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

Sure it can. You just don't like the answers and have made up your own. Unfortunately you seem afraid to share with us what it is other than something non-physical that is embedded in your face.

What is the best answer for how the Neural Activity produces Conscious Experience. Let's use the Perception or Experience of the Color Red as an example. Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Experience of Redness happens.

How does 1 produce 2? In other words what would you put in between 1 and 2? 

 

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I read the "embedded" part as an unfortunate word choice. "Readily available" seems more appropriate, and doesn't have the physical implications. 

Still, the idea that we don't actually see light physically, but instead detect it through some sort of consciousness filter is demonstrably false. But if one studied the eye before studying light, I could see how the misconception can happen.

Let me understand your understanding. Do you believe that we directly Experience the Physical Electromagnetic Light when we are Seeing?

[Bufofrog]

28 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

What is the best answer for how the Neural Activity produces Conscious Experience. Let's use the Perception or Experience of the Color Red as an example. Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Experience of Redness happens.

How does 1 produce 2? In other words what would you put in between 1 and 2? 

It sounds like you are asking, describe exactly how consciousness works.  I think it is safe to say science does not have this answer.  How do you think you get from 1 to 2?

[SteveKlinko]

13 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

It sounds like you are asking, describe exactly how consciousness works.  I think it is safe to say science does not have this answer.  How do you think you get from 1 to 2?

I propose this question to people that think there is no problem with Consciousness. Some of the people that have been replying to the OP are saying that there is no problem with Consciousness. They think that Science has already got it all figured out and if you don't agree with them then it is because you have not worked hard enough to understand the Science of Consciousness. I don't know what the answer is. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness and there is a huge Explanatory Gap between 1 and 2 that has not been answered by Science.

[SteveKlinko]

We Do Not See Objects We Detect Objects

The Big Bang happens and a new Universe is created. This Universe consists of Matter, Energy, and Space. After billions of years of complicated interactions and processes the Matter, Energy, and Space produce a planet with Conscious Life Forms (CLFs). In the course of their evolution the CLFs will need to See each other in order to live and interact with each other. But what does it really mean to See? A CLF is first of all a Physical Thing. There is no magic power that just lets a CLF See another CLF. A CLF can only Detect another CLF through some sensing mechanism which must be made out of Physical material and which uses Physical processes. There never is any kind of Seeing in the sense that we think we understand it. There is always only Detection.

 

So a CLF might understand that it does not ever really See another CLF, but it will still insist that it Sees the reflected Light. The CLF would be mistaken if it thinks it Sees even the reflected Light. All it can do is Detect the reflected Light. Its sensing mechanism can only produce Physical reactions, like Neural Activity, that are correlated with the reflected Light. If the reflected Light is Red the sensing mechanism will fire Neurons that only fire for Red inputs. The CLF might be able to sense that the Red Neurons are firing. So every time these Neurons fire it can report that it is seeing Red. This CLF is only sensing particular Neurons firing and is not experiencing Red like we do.

 

A CLF like us Sees Red as a Conscious experience and is not aware of any Neural Activity. This Conscious Red Experience (the Experience of Redness) is how we Detect Red Light from the external Physical World. Unfortunately the experience of Redness, at least for now, can not be found in the Brain or explained by Brain Activity. Further investigation shows the Experience of Redness cannot be found in any kind of Matter, Energy, or Space so we must conclude that it is something different than any of these things. Redness is in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known and existent Scientific Category of Phenomena. It is hoped that Science will be able to better understand Conscious Phenomena someday and that a whole new branch of Science will be created that is dedicated to the study of Conscious Phenomena.

 

Let us now qualify the Space we know and call it Physical Space and then introduce a new Conscious Space as the place where our Conscious experiences like Redness occur. Conscious Space might eventually be found to be a component of ordinary Physical Space, but until Science figures out how to deal with Consciousness we should think about Conscious Space as simply a Tool that allows Conscious Phenomena to have a place to exist for the sake of discussion. Conscious Space might seem like a strange thing right now but someday it could be an integral part of our Scientific understanding. The Conscious Space concept will be developed throughout the Inter Mind paper and in the following topics.

 

Since we have proposed this Conscious Space it is only natural to wonder if there is a corresponding Conscious Matter and a Conscious Energy. Maybe Red is a type of Conscious Matter, and maybe Volition is a type of Conscious Energy. But these analogies are just naive speculations because whatever Conscious Space might be, it is probably not going to be like any kind of Physical Space.

 

It is instructive to start talking about the perception of Light by concentrating on a particular type of Light, namely Red Light, as in the above paragraphs. But it should be understood that the two dimensional Conscious Visual Scene that we experience is made out of all the possible Colors of Light depending on what we are looking at. So in the following sections when I use the term Light I am referring to that Conscious Visual Scene with all the Colors. I have found that some people try to imagine that someone is waving a flashlight in front of them when I talk about seeing Light, or especially later in the arguments section when I talk about Dream Light. But everything you see in any particular area of the Conscious Visual Scene is some Color of Light. Of course Black is the absence of any Light in an area of the Scene. Although Black is the absence of any Light it is still a Conscious Experience and is technically an actual Conscious Color.