BM Brain Theory vs. Neuroscience

[SpeedOfSound]

I have spell checked and unpacked(my style) Little Idiot's Complete Theory of Neuroscience here as a convenience for all.

the senses and brain/CNS
are to make the world
which is internal to mind
be experienced
as external to the body.

Both body and environment
are internal to both individual and Big mind,
but the environment is external to the body;
without the senses and CNS
this externalization is not possible.
Consider a dream;
we 'see' and 'hear' in the dream,
even though it is an imagination.
We cant experience the mental world of our dream
as-if external to our dream-body
without the action of our dream-senses.


The mental data includes all the information required to form the individual experience, including the physical environment, body brain etc. which are parts of the physical environment.

The IM processes this data
and by the process of externalization
that which is internal to mind (mental data)
appears as-if it is external.

It is actually external to the body,
but internal to the mind
(the body obviously being internal to the mind too).

This capacity of the mind to externalize its internal ideas can easily be seen by considering a dream, where an internal imagination (the dream) appears as if it is an external physical environment while in the dream.

The process of externalizing
requires the senses
so that the body can interact with the environment
as external to it.

Without the senses
the environment can not be known as external to the body,
the body needs to reach beyond itself with sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste.

These senses give the impression of incoming sense data
from the external non-mental environment,
while in fact the sense data is already mental,
only appearing as non-mental.

Care is needed here;
the physical world is external to the body,
is physical,
but its real nature is mental
as it is internal to the individual mind -
there is no contradiction between internal to the mind and external to the body.


The CNS and brain process the incoming sense data
and it can be traced through the physical mechanism of nerve, brain etc.

However it's final destination
is as an 'awareness of an experience'
which is a mental awareness.

There is no change or transition here
because the whole physical process is a mental event
only appearing as if non-mental.

The physical model can not explain the change over from physical brain activity into subjective mental experience.
This is referred to as the thing to thought gap.

[Little Idiot]

So we have experiences only in an R1 sense, but its these very experiences you guys want to use to verify your empirical knowledge - if we dont have experiences in R2, then how do we observe our empirical evidence?
What is a scientific investigation without the observation of the results - ie the experience needs to confirm the hypothesis.

This here is but one example of what I call The Strange CosmoCon aggravating Thingy SCaT.

(For people not familiar with CosmoCon it means the Cosmic Consciousness crowd as a whole. Panpsychists, C in the atoms, C as the source of universe, mentalists etc. )

This is where we are talking about science of C or knowledge from R2 about C and you bring up something about our science is knowledge is from observation using C.

This is the Purest Stink of sloppy philosophy, Philosloppy. Don't fucking do it!

R1/R2 are types of knowledge. They aren't 'realities'. You don't go and do some observing in R1 and then teleport over to R2 and observe some more. You accept the types of knowledge as a way to talk about the knowledge. Period.

When we are talking about R1/R2 knowledge of the brain you don't get to start sprinkling SCaT all over the fucking discussion by bringing up that we get knowledge from the thing we are trying to illuminate with the knowledge.

Not if you want to be taken seriously.

In my book, empirical observation is a form of experience. True or false?

Just the other day I was under attack for arguing that there can be any knowledge by any means other than by empirical observation. Ie you are arguing all knowledge comes frorm a form of experience.

Now you want to exclude experience, ie observation from science!

You need to pick a side of the fence and stick to it to avoid being accused of self contradiction.

[Little Idiot]

We talk about 'experience' and we recognise certain events as 'experiences', so, in the R1 folk psychology sense, we 'have experiences' We have information about experience that leads us to thinking about 'what its like' etc

'Experience' has an implicit subject.

So we have experiences only in an R1 sense, but its these very experiences you guys want to use to verify your empirical knowledge - if we dont have experiences in R2, then how do we observe our empirical evidence?
What is a scientific investigation without the observation of the results - ie the experience needs to confirm the hypothesis. A few posts ago I was defending against the argument all we know is empirical, ie experience. Now you are denyiong that there is any experience outside R1 folk psychology?

No. I'm suggesting the nature of 'what we 'know as experience' is not as it seems in the R1 sense. Just as with many R1 issues, we have to delve deeper and apply reason in R2 to see beyond the surface of things. In doing so we need to check with observation, carefully managed to minimise errors.

Yes, I think we can all agree there.

'Own thoughts' and 'own mind' are tricky. Mind does not seem to be a unitary thing. It has parts, many unpercieved and unknown parts. We have experiences of thoughts, but we don't experience forming them. I think this is a problem for your naive model. It isn't 'the observer' that does the thinking/knowing etc.

My car is not a unitary thing, it has many parts some of which are unknown to me. I dont experience the vapourisation of petrol prior to ignition. But I can drive.
The mind is not unitary, and includes subconscious activity, sure. But I know and create thoughts by its action, both consciously and unconsciously. And I experience them; demonstrate to your self - think of a visualization of a red square, and it is experienced. QED. Thats the 'problem' solved for my model i think?

Hardly! You asked something to give you an experience. It wasn't your subjective self that provided. You might call it 'the subconscious'. Whatever you call it it is outside your subjective bubble. The same something might have answered if I had prompted you to visualise a red square.

Yes, the original source of the experience is not the self, I am not a solipsist. It is from outside the subjective bubble.

We might say experience is a content of mind, or that knowledge that there is experience taking place is content of mind. Those are not necessarily the same thing. Perhaps 'experience' is merely knowledge that something particular is happening in the brain?

I don't think there is a SimWorld model of the world inside a mind that a mental observer inhabits and experiences.

I dont suggest a simworld where there is a mental copy of the external world, and I experience this copy.
The external world is only external to the body.
The body and world are internal to the mind. The mental experience IS ALL I can or do experience; it IS my experienced world, it IS the physical world external to the body.

The external world, whatever it is that instigates experience, is external to the subjective bubble.

Agreed. But it must be able to interface with the subjective bubble. The subjective bubble is mental, therefore what ever the source is it must interface with tthe mental, this means it must be mental.

I don't think any of this gives you a firm place to stand and take a position. You don;t claim that your mind is the source of your experiences, do you? I think you invoke an unknown BM to do that for you, outside your subjective that you have such confidence in.

The BM is the source of the 'original data' but the individual mind is responsible for the construction of the experience. The experience of a tree which I see is mind made, made by my mind. The experienced tree (that I experience) is in my mind, if you want to trace 'how does something existing independent of my mind interact with my mind to cause my experience of it?' then the answer is that the tree (not my experience of it) is in the 'original data' presented to my mind by BM. So in that sense the BM is the originator of the unexperienced tree, but my individual mind is the constructor of my experience of the tree.
If I am not there to look (or listen), I dont experience the tree, it is not in my experience, but it is still in the forest by virtue of BM.

Do you experience the 'construction of experience'? Of course not. That is not included in your subjective. Only the result of it is, in any sense 'inside'. Something associated with you does something to take tree data and produce 'experience, but your 'subjective experiencer' is totally blind to it and it may not be 'mental'.

If BM originates unexperienced trees then the tree is not inside your mind.

The 'original tree' is not in my mind. Only my experience of the tree is in my mind.
However, if the original is to interface with the mind and cause the experience it must be of a similar nature; mental.

Since by our explaination and agreement it is outside the subjective bubble, we know NOTHING else about it other than it must interface with the mind - we have no reason to assume it is non-mental.
Can you provide any reason to suggest the source of the subjective experience is non-mental?
I doubt it...

[SpeedOfSound]

So we have experiences only in an R1 sense, but its these very experiences you guys want to use to verify your empirical knowledge - if we dont have experiences in R2, then how do we observe our empirical evidence?
What is a scientific investigation without the observation of the results - ie the experience needs to confirm the hypothesis.

This here is but one example of what I call The Strange CosmoCon aggravating Thingy SCaT.

(For people not familiar with CosmoCon it means the Cosmic Consciousness crowd as a whole. Panpsychists, C in the atoms, C as the source of universe, mentalists etc. )

This is where we are talking about science of C or knowledge from R2 about C and you bring up something about our science is knowledge is from observation using C.

This is the Purest Stink of sloppy philosophy, Philosloppy. Don't fucking do it!

R1/R2 are types of knowledge. They aren't 'realities'. You don't go and do some observing in R1 and then teleport over to R2 and observe some more. You accept the types of knowledge as a way to talk about the knowledge. Period.

When we are talking about R1/R2 knowledge of the brain you don't get to start sprinkling SCaT all over the fucking discussion by bringing up that we get knowledge from the thing we are trying to illuminate with the knowledge.

Not if you want to be taken seriously.

In my book, empirical observation is a form of experience. True or false?

Just the other day I was under attack for arguing that there can be any knowledge by any means other than by empirical observation. Ie you are arguing all knowledge comes frorm a form of experience.

Now you want to exclude experience, ie observation from science!

You need to pick a side of the fence and stick to it to avoid being accused of self contradiction.

It's okay if you completely fail to grasp the content of my post.

Everything is Okay.

[Little Idiot]

We talk about 'experience' and we recognise certain events as 'experiences', so, in the R1 folk psychology sense, we 'have experiences' We have information about experience that leads us to thinking about 'what its like' etc

'Experience' has an implicit subject.

So we have experiences only in an R1 sense, but its these very experiences you guys want to use to verify your empirical knowledge - if we dont have experiences in R2, then how do we observe our empirical evidence?
What is a scientific investigation without the observation of the results - ie the experience needs to confirm the hypothesis. A few posts ago I was defending against the argument all we know is empirical, ie experience. Now you are denyiong that there is any experience outside R1 folk psychology?

No. I'm suggesting the nature of 'what we 'know as experience' is not as it seems in the R1 sense. Just as with many R1 issues, we have to delve deeper and apply reason in R2 to see beyond the surface of things. In doing so we need to check with observation, carefully managed to minimise errors.

This was the whole point of laying R1 and R2 the way I did. It make it a little easier to keep the category jumping to a minimum.

R1 is not evidence or tested knowledge. It is however a source of the things we all want to explain. Our R1 ideas of experience for instance. Or what a flame is.

R2, in my opinion, is the only way to explain any of it. But that is just an opinion based on the useful explanations I have thus far found and the fact that I have seen none other valid source of explanations. Yet. Not holding my breath.

Philosophy, not metaphysics, is a useful tool. It can dig into our R1 knowledge and illuminate how the concepts and words connect or where they come from. I like Wittgenstein and Minsky and guys like that. They dig into the meanings and discuss even what meanings are and how real they are.

Bad philosophy draws without definition from R1 and without shame from R2 and makes conclusions that are metaphysical.

This is where you live LittleIdiot.

Were that true, why am I the only person able to comment about absolute reality?
I have made a few modest claims on the nature of absolute reality based on my one axiom (the only one I need btw). As yet, I think there are no serious threats to the validity of the axiom, and at least some of the points drawn from it.

I am showing metaphysics is grounded. I am doing this by providing an axiom to ground it, and providing metaphysical facts based on the axiom and logic.

If that (a grounding and a product) is not enough to prove "metaphysics is an error" is false, then you need to either

1. dismiss my axiom. Or,
2. dismiss all my conclusions bnased on the axiom. Or,
3. STFU already.

Good philosophy painstakingly analyzes R1 and confidently draws from R2 to make solid ground upon which arguments are waged.

When people like Dennett say that C or qualia do not exist they mean that the sloppy philosophy ideas about them do not exist. That's all they mean.

I hope this clears things up a little.

Oh! Almost forgot. Metaphysics has no basis anywhere that I can see. At least not yet.

[Little Idiot]

So we have experiences only in an R1 sense, but its these very experiences you guys want to use to verify your empirical knowledge - if we dont have experiences in R2, then how do we observe our empirical evidence?
What is a scientific investigation without the observation of the results - ie the experience needs to confirm the hypothesis.

This here is but one example of what I call The Strange CosmoCon aggravating Thingy SCaT.

(For people not familiar with CosmoCon it means the Cosmic Consciousness crowd as a whole. Panpsychists, C in the atoms, C as the source of universe, mentalists etc. )

This is where we are talking about science of C or knowledge from R2 about C and you bring up something about our science is knowledge is from observation using C.

This is the Purest Stink of sloppy philosophy, Philosloppy. Don't fucking do it!

R1/R2 are types of knowledge. They aren't 'realities'. You don't go and do some observing in R1 and then teleport over to R2 and observe some more. You accept the types of knowledge as a way to talk about the knowledge. Period.

When we are talking about R1/R2 knowledge of the brain you don't get to start sprinkling SCaT all over the fucking discussion by bringing up that we get knowledge from the thing we are trying to illuminate with the knowledge.

Not if you want to be taken seriously.

In my book, empirical observation is a form of experience. True or false?

Just the other day I was under attack for arguing that there can be any knowledge by any means other than by empirical observation. Ie you are arguing all knowledge comes frorm a form of experience.

Now you want to exclude experience, ie observation from science!

You need to pick a side of the fence and stick to it to avoid being accused of self contradiction.

It's okay if you completely fail to grasp the content of my post.

Everything is Okay.

All I am getting is a few fun-poking acronyms, some general 'your naieve' and a total lack of answers to the simple question in my post.
Sorry to tell you that.

Here it is again;
In my book, empirical observation is a form of experience. True or false?

[SpeedOfSound]

All I am getting is a few fun-poking acronyms, some general 'your naieve' and a total lack of answers to the simple question in my post.
Sorry to tell you that.

Here it is again;
In my book, empirical observation is a form of experience. True or false?

Sorry that you missed the point. I certainly am not going to react to your strawful question. Read the post and try to understand it or move on.

[SpeedOfSound]

Were that true, why am I the only person able to comment about absolute reality?
I have made a few modest claims on the nature of absolute reality based on my one axiom (the only one I need btw). As yet, I think there are no serious threats to the validity of the axiom, and at least some of the points drawn from it.

I am showing metaphysics is grounded. I am doing this by providing an axiom to ground it, and providing metaphysical facts based on the axiom and logic.

If that (a grounding and a product) is not enough to prove "metaphysics is an error" is false, then you need to either

1. dismiss my axiom. Or,
2. dismiss all my conclusions bnased on the axiom. Or,
3. STFU already.

I forget what the exact text of your axiom was but as I remember it lacked the persuasive axiomatic feature of being in general agreement as to it's putative truth.

I thus dismiss it.


But. Wasn't that the other threads purpose? This one is titled your NS vs. mine.

[Little Idiot]

Were that true, why am I the only person able to comment about absolute reality?
I have made a few modest claims on the nature of absolute reality based on my one axiom (the only one I need btw). As yet, I think there are no serious threats to the validity of the axiom, and at least some of the points drawn from it.

I am showing metaphysics is grounded. I am doing this by providing an axiom to ground it, and providing metaphysical facts based on the axiom and logic.

If that (a grounding and a product) is not enough to prove "metaphysics is an error" is false, then you need to either

1. dismiss my axiom. Or,
2. dismiss all my conclusions bnased on the axiom. Or,
3. STFU already.

I forget what the exact text of your axiom was but as I remember it lacked the persuasive axiomatic feature of being in general agreement as to it's putative truth.

I thus dismiss it.


But. Wasn't that the other threads purpose? This one is titled your NS vs. mine.

By which you mean what exactly? Care to explain in this or the other thread? I can put the axiom up again if you like.

[SpeedOfSound]

Given that you claim, LI, that your model accounts for all the experimental evidence of NS, it would be good to look at your externalization idea with the Hermann grid illusion.

http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_ ... _black.jpg

How do you account for the black dots that aren't really there?

[SpeedOfSound]

I forget what the exact text of your axiom was but as I remember it lacked the persuasive axiomatic feature of being in general agreement as to it's putative truth.

I thus dismiss it.


But. Wasn't that the other threads purpose? This one is titled your NS vs. mine.

By which you mean what exactly? Care to explain in this or the other thread? I can put the axiom up again if you like.

Do so and copy this post over there.

[Little Idiot]

Given that you claim, LI, that your model accounts for all the experimental evidence of NS, it would be good to look at your externalization idea with the Hermann grid illusion.

http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_ ... _black.jpg

How do you account for the black dots that aren't really there?

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.
I find it hard to believe thats what I said or meant.

But I will have a look at the illusion, and get back to you.

[Little Idiot]

Given that you claim, LI, that your model accounts for all the experimental evidence of NS, it would be good to look at your externalization idea with the Hermann grid illusion.

http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_ ... _black.jpg

How do you account for the black dots that aren't really there?

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.
I find it hard to believe thats what I said or meant.

But I will have a look at the illusion, and get back to you.

Hrmm, nice illusion.

Is it supposed to show anything special, apart from the un-real dots of course. I mean can we learn anything specific from it?

To me, its an example where the minds reconstruction can be seen to be different to the actual sensory input. The sensory input is not exactly replicated, rather the mind takes liberties and makes a 'good enough to get by' reconstruction. Like many illusions it shows that we do not experience what is actually causing the sense stimulus, and do not even get to experience an accurate copy.

We know there are no dots, but we still see them. Experience and knowing are not identical.

[SpeedOfSound]

Given that you claim, LI, that your model accounts for all the experimental evidence of NS, it would be good to look at your externalization idea with the Hermann grid illusion.

http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_ ... _black.jpg

How do you account for the black dots that aren't really there?

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.
I find it hard to believe thats what I said or meant.

But I will have a look at the illusion, and get back to you.

Well if it can't account for the evidence then it is falsified.

[SpeedOfSound]

Given that you claim, LI, that your model accounts for all the experimental evidence of NS, it would be good to look at your externalization idea with the Hermann grid illusion.

http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_ ... _black.jpg

How do you account for the black dots that aren't really there?

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.
I find it hard to believe thats what I said or meant.

But I will have a look at the illusion, and get back to you.

Hrmm, nice illusion.

Is it supposed to show anything special, apart from the un-real dots of course. I mean can we learn anything specific from it?

To me, its an example where the minds reconstruction can be seen to be different to the actual sensory input. The sensory input is not exactly replicated, rather the mind takes liberties and makes a 'good enough to get by' reconstruction. Like many illusions it shows that we do not experience what is actually causing the sense stimulus, and do not even get to experience an accurate copy.

We know there are no dots, but we still see them. Experience and knowing are not identical.

This is no mere illusion where the mind's construction fails. It's actually physically there. But only on the brain side of the retina. The four black corners are shutting down the white centers where you see the dots. They do this with something called lateral inhibition. This is a characteristic of the wiring of photoreceptor into a single ganglion which then delivers it's info to V1 in the brain. It is necessary for us to see the way we see. That is to be able to detect edges as clearly as we can.

So your brain is being lied to in this case and it is a necessary lie. The lie happens in a chain of events that is entirely in the physical realm. From truth to illusion.

But if the black squares are already mental in nature and in the BM then I can't understand why we perceive them as having circles between them when it is nothing but an artifact of physical processing.

Why would the neural structure of the visual system be externalized by the senses as you say? What exactly is being externalized here?