Cito di Pense wrote:People make soothing noises at each other to cut down on random muggings. People feel happier when they feel subjectively like other people understand their subjective experience, whether or not that projected understanding is a complete fucking delusion.

The question is not: do you understand other people's subjective experience? The question is can you explain your own?

Cito di Pense wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:People make soothing noises at each other to cut down on random muggings. People feel happier when they feel subjectively like other people understand their subjective experience, whether or not that projected understanding is a complete fucking delusion.

The question is not: do you understand other people's subjective experience? The question is can you explain your own?

That's not a question, because if I don't say diddly about my (own) subjective experience, you don't have a question.

Of course I have a question, directed to myself, which can draw on science for answers. I can compare notes with others engaged with the same issue. If you had something to contribute as an explanation of your experiences I could try it for size on my experiences.

Cito di Pense wrote:You don't even have a warrant to mention my subjective experience.

I have no interest in your subjective experiences, only in whatever analysis of the issue you may have to offer.

Cito di Pense wrote:My observation is that it is just talk.

If you insist. It makes no sense to me, in addressing my question.

Cito di Pense wrote:

GrahamH wrote:What words do I use in the visualisation?

The point here is that "visualisation" might as well be a made-up word. At any rate, it is just a word. There's no evidence that "visualisation" goes on. It's a word that people imprecisely apply to part of what they call "subjective experience".

I have excellent evidence that visualisation goes on, simply by visualising. WTF is going on is the question, but it certainly is not just the word "visualisation". It may have a form of "language" but it is not English.

Cito di Pense wrote:When something is drawn from memory, there is at least a drawing, and an original. When somebody draws a scene from imagination, it is called a "cartoon". In the former case, we are talking about "memory", which has to do with dredging up the past. Your best bet for "cartoons" is to start wibbling about "archetypes".

My best bet for cartoon is also memory, with generalised categories and some assembly of those categorised objects. There is a sense in which categorising the world in memory could be called a sort of language. Neural networks responding to patterns of stimuli could be considered symbols, but I don;t get the impression this is anything like what you mean when you say "it is just talk".

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Damn you are hard to please.

No. I simply find no upside to talking about first-person experience for its own sake. It's a turf battle for philosophy.

You mean feeling the grand subjective sense that I am elucidating mental activity? For all you know, you could be doing the same thing the string-theorists are doing, developing formalism for experiments that are impossible.

Ask yourself why the particular "problem" of subjectivity is so attractive to you. Perhaps you just value "subjectivity". More than I do, anyway.

I have asked and I fully understand why SE is an attractive field of study for me. I kind of see your thinking as just another aspect of the problem I have with the Nonnies. Those who think it is just a big mystery of which we cannot speak.

It's not a mystery and it is not a singular bit of crap that we should just sweep away. Rather it is the key to understanding all aspects and all mysteries of being human. Granted you can choose to live without the benefit of science if you like. I just think it a shame that you would choose that.

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I have asked and I fully understand why SE is an attractive field of study for me. I kind of see your thinking as just another aspect of the problem I have with the Nonnies. Those who think it is just a big mystery of which we cannot speak.

It's not a mystery and it is not a singular bit of crap that we should just sweep away. Rather it is the key to understanding all aspects and all mysteries of being human. Granted you can choose to live without the benefit of science if you like. I just think it a shame that you would choose that.

Almost, but not quite. I just recognize the pitfalls of studying subjective experience as a DIY project, but you think anyone will just admit that you're a mind reader. The wibblers have been on the case for 2500 years. Remember, Sigmund Freud undertook to analyse himself, and had a fool for a physician and a fool for a client.

But if you want to do it, knock yourself out. Before proceeding. I won't say it's impossible, but I think you'll tire of it. Or die trying. I think "understanding all aspects and all mysteries of being human" is overreaching. It's that "all" business that gets me. That's philosophy, for ya. The analytic kind, anyway. What's going to happen is that people will grow weary of "RSN".

SpeedOfSound wrote:It's not a mystery and it is not a singular bit of crap that we should just sweep away.

Yeah, but have a care for the problems of simulating the weather to pinpoint precision in real time. We already have heuristics and Folk Pshawcollegy. If you knew how to change your state of mind, who would you wanna be? Not just some wannabe, surely.

I mean, once you have human mentality dialed in, predicting the direction of the stock market should be child's play, as long as you can forecast the weather well enough to predict commodity prices. Really, SoS, you'll want to have a handle on how the weather affects people's moods in such a way that it is not history-dependent.

Well! I hope you understand what it is that I am proposing. I do feel that I personally have a handle on ALL of the mysteries or at least I know where to look. Certainly not the detail that a computer the size of Jupiter would provide but then it isn't the detail that I'm after.

It's enough for me to be able to model things like my idea about consciousness or my idea about mushroom soup and understand how that idea is modeled in the cortex and the HC and how it is recalled. I understand that if I need soup at the store that I have to do certain things to be able to remember that while at the store. It's all fascinating and often useful to me to learn about the brain.

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Visualisation is simply imagining the visual appearance of something. Can you do that? I expect some people are better at it than others.

This is an interesting comment from you, since you've previously reduced all the various experiences to differing brain states. From that perspective, then, how would you explain visualisation? As a willful configuration of the brain to a state that is representative of the thing that you want to visualise? I don't see what else it could be, from your perspective.

I would explain visualisation as internal stimlualtion of visual pathways that are otherwise stimulated by visual input. If my looking at a red cup produces layered responses R1,R2,R3 then something else that stimulates R2,R3 is much the same as looking at a red cup, without using the eyes. There is no conceptual difficulty in the brain self-stimulating, it is the nature if the organ to be multiply connected and looped.

Okay... going with your flow:

Concerning 'fiction': How would the brain visualise something that had never been seen before?

... According to your response, visualisation is just the self-stimulisation (where the 'self' = brain) of visual pathways. The visualisation of a 'red cup', for instance, is instigated by stimulating 'visual pathways' that have previously been instrumental in producing the actual experience of a red cup. However, when it comes to imagination, how would the brain know which pathways to stimulate in order to produce the image of a pink fairy?

... Clearly, the brain has had no previous visual experience of pink fairies. Nor of Clingons... nor of Mickey Mouse... nor of Miss Piggy. The point being, that visualisation/imagination of an entity/event, cannot simply be the stimulation of visual pathways that have previously reported the presence of other such entities/events.

It is quite obvious that 'the brain' (or, whatever it is that creates visualisation; dreams; subjective-imagery) must know - prior to ever experiencing such entities - exactly how to 'manifest' them. But how could this be so?!

You've opened a whole can of worms, Graham. That is, your use and allegiance of/to the word 'visualisation' forces us to cross a significant threshold, into the habitation of creativity; will; purpose.

... No doubt, you will argue that 'purpose' is commensurate with Darwin's 'natural selection'. And how could I deny that the trait of 'imagination' was useful? But as far as 'blind mechanisms' go, Graham, there is no room within Darwinism for will & creativity.

Your philosophy - which is hardly yours - is completely shallow. It doesn't take alot of turbulance to stir the mud.

Art is demonstrative of how its produce cannot simply be a mirror of existing entities. Clearly, art transcends what apparently exists.

... Therefore, I reject your claim that 'visualisation' is [simply] nought but the mimicry-stimulation of visual pathways that have reported like-entities, before. Further, I claim that the trait of 'visualisation' (in its greatest fictional-extent), provides sufficient evidence for the existence of an entity that exhibits will; creativity; purpose.

... In other words, I think that you are shooting yourself in the foot when you incorporate concepts such as 'visualisation' into a materialistic philosophy.

Cito never spotted that. He's just pissed-off with you for using words that don't relate to the 'real world'.

logical bob wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Let me put it this way: If science was just a "language game", then "eating my hat" would be a "party trick".

The thing is, Cito, there's all this stuff around today about Stephen Hawking saying science indicates the universe had no creator. Dawkins said the claim that God answers prayers is in principle open to scientific investigation. Lots of people claim that the Libet experiment has consequences for free will (however you might define that). In many areas, it appears that scientists are talking about woo, rather than saying woo can't be talked about precisely.

I'm no expert here, but perhaps the scientists are as far behind you as the philosophers.

Hawking is no better/different than Dawkins. It actually breaks my heart to see the main BBC news reporting the fact that "God is not needed", because Stephen says so. Do the BBC not know what influence they have over the masses... and hence, the future?

jamest wrote:
Concerning 'fiction': How would the brain visualise something that had never been seen before?

... According to your response, visualisation is just the self-stimulisation (where the 'self' = brain) of visual pathways. The visualisation of a 'red cup', for instance, is instigated by stimulating 'visual pathways' that have previously been instrumental in producing the actual experience of a red cup. However, when it comes to imagination, how would the brain know which pathways to stimulate in order to produce the image of a pink fairy?

... Clearly, the brain has had no previous visual experience of pink fairies. Nor of Clingons... nor of Mickey Mouse... nor of Miss Piggy. The point being, that visualisation/imagination of an entity/event, cannot simply be the stimulation of visual pathways that have previously reported the presence of other such entities/events.

Oddly most of us have had more experience with Klingons than with red cups.

jamest wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:
This is an interesting comment from you, since you've previously reduced all the various experiences to differing brain states. From that perspective, then, how would you explain visualisation? As a willful configuration of the brain to a state that is representative of the thing that you want to visualise? I don't see what else it could be, from your perspective.

I would explain visualisation as internal stimlualtion of visual pathways that are otherwise stimulated by visual input. If my looking at a red cup produces layered responses R1,R2,R3 then something else that stimulates R2,R3 is much the same as looking at a red cup, without using the eyes. There is no conceptual difficulty in the brain self-stimulating, it is the nature if the organ to be multiply connected and looped.

Okay... going with your flow:

Concerning 'fiction': How would the brain visualise something that had never been seen before?

I'm not sure it can. Human creativity seems to re-mix elements from experience, as your examples demonstrate...

jamest wrote:... According to your response, visualisation is just the self-stimulisation (where the 'self' = brain) of visual pathways. The visualisation of a 'red cup', for instance, is instigated by stimulating 'visual pathways' that have previously been instrumental in producing the actual experience of a red cup. However, when it comes to imagination, how would the brain know which pathways to stimulate in order to produce the image of a pink fairy?

If you had never seen pink could you visualise a pink fairy? Of course a fairy is merely a human figure with insect-like wings, so nothing beyond experience is involved in the construction.

jamest wrote:... Clearly, the brain has had no previous visual experience of pink fairies. Nor of Clingons... nor of Mickey Mouse... nor of Miss Piggy. The point being, that visualisation/imagination of an entity/event, cannot simply be the stimulation of visual pathways that have previously reported the presence of other such entities/events.

Klingons are humans with make-up, mice and pigs are well known to us, and the cartoon versions simply simplify and exaggerate features. Try to visualise something that is not a combination of things you have previously had some experience of. Can you do it? I suspect it is impossible.

jamest wrote:It is quite obvious that 'the brain' (or, whatever it is that creates visualisation; dreams; subjective-imagery) must know - prior to ever experiencing such entities - exactly how to 'manifest' them. But how could this be so?!

Simply by taking elements previously categorised from experience and mixing them up. I can imagine a creature that is a combination of a potato and a snake, because I know what the parts are like. I think that is how creativity works - sticking familiar patterns together in novel combinations.

jamest wrote:You've opened a whole can of worms, Graham. That is, your use and allegiance of/to the word 'visualisation' forces us to cross a significant threshold, into the habitation of creativity; will; purpose.

Actually I think it supports my position, but if you can invent something with no antecedents, a genuinely new idea from nothing but your own mind, then I will have to revise my position.

jamest wrote:... No doubt, you will argue that 'purpose' is commensurate with Darwin's 'natural selection'. And how could I deny that the trait of 'imagination' was useful? But as far as 'blind mechanisms' go, Graham, there is no room within Darwinism for will & creativity.

Clearly you are wrong in that, since the mechanism of evolution are evidently capable of creating new things by combining things that exist in new ways. I suggest to you that the brain is doing something similar, persisting patterns that somehow best fit the circumstances.

jamest wrote:Your philosophy - which is hardly yours - is completely shallow. It doesn't take alot of turbulance to stir the mud.

Of course my philosophy is not some some pure creation of my own mind in isolation. Nor is yours. Nor is any idea anyone has ever had. They are formed from observation of the world around us and combinations of the ideas of others. I don't denigrate human creativity by saying that, it a glorious thing, but it doesn't create from nothing.

jamest wrote:Art is demonstrative of how its produce cannot simply be a mirror of existing entities. Clearly, art transcends what apparently exists.

Can you offer any examples. I think you will have to at least look to abstract art, since representative art of any kind obviously is not "transcending what exists".

jamest wrote:... Therefore, I reject your claim that 'visualisation' is [simply] nought but the mimicry-stimulation of visual pathways that have reported like-entities, before. Further, I claim that the trait of 'visualisation' (in its greatest fictional-extent), provides sufficient evidence for the existence of an entity that exhibits will; creativity; purpose.

I await your transcendent examples!

jamest wrote:... In other words, I think that you are shooting yourself in the foot when you incorporate concepts such as 'visualisation' into a materialistic philosophy.

I think the hole is in your foot.

jamest wrote:Cito never spotted that. He's just pissed-off with you for using words that don't relate to the 'real world'.

Visualisation does relate to the real world, and evolved to make plans for the real world, unless you can visualise something entirely new.

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:Concerning 'fiction': How would the brain visualise something that had never been seen before?

I'm not sure it can. Human creativity seems to re-mix elements from experience, as your examples demonstrate...

jamest wrote:... According to your response, visualisation is just the self-stimulisation (where the 'self' = brain) of visual pathways. The visualisation of a 'red cup', for instance, is instigated by stimulating 'visual pathways' that have previously been instrumental in producing the actual experience of a red cup. However, when it comes to imagination, how would the brain know which pathways to stimulate in order to produce the image of a pink fairy?

If you had never seen pink could you visualise a pink fairy? Of course a fairy is merely a human figure with insect-like wings, so nothing beyond experience is involved in the construction.

I think that you've got the wrong end of my stick. You said that to visualise a red cup involved stimulating pathways that had previously been stimulated by red cups. This process, then, wouldn't require any creativity at all (though note, it would require will) - it would just require memory/awareness of which pathways were previously stimulated during the observation of a red cup, so that the same pathways could be stimulated. However, when it comes to visualising things such as a pink fairy, the brain then has to start being creative, since there are no specific pathways commensurate with pink fairies. Sure, there are pathways involving pinkness; human females; wings. But these are all distinct pathways. So the brain couldn't just rely on memory. It would have to orchestrate all the required pathways to produce a unique image within the mind. Furthermore, prior to doing this, the brain would already have to have some kind of idea of what it was that it was trying to create an image of. If I ask you to visualise a fairy, for instance, the notion of 'fairy' has to exist prior to its visualisation. Producing a unique notion is in itself creative, in that the notion of 'fairy' is a notion about something that cannot be observed. That is, the notion is non-worldly. It is born in the mind.

It takes no creative effort to visualise something that you've already experienced. But it does require creativity to come up with a theme/idea/notion/etc. and then utilise and orchestrate many different aspects of previous experience to produce a visualisation, or piece of 'art'. If I was to compose a piece of music to surpass anything done by Beethoven or Mozart, would you really not consider it to be 'art' because I had utilised a musical scale not devised by myself and memories of pre-existing 'notes'? Does art really have to be absolute, before it is art?

... Visualising entities that you've never directly experienced before, clearly involves creativity, in that it would clearly involve a 'composition' of one's own making.

Of course my philosophy is not some some pure creation of my own mind in isolation. Nor is yours. Nor is any idea anyone has ever had.

That last comment has to be wrong, since there must have been a first idea, sometime, somewhere. There has to be a first for practically anything in the world. That must include ideas/concepts/notions/words - even 'a philosophy'.

They are formed from observation of the world around us and combinations of the ideas of others. I don't denigrate human creativity by saying that, it a glorious thing, but it doesn't create from nothing.

I object to you merely asserting that the world exists "around us" (externally to us) and is [therefore] the source of all 'art'. As I remember saying to you in a previous discussion, even the brain is confined to knowing nought but itself (its own states or configurations). The brain can only react to itself. That is, even if there is a reality "out there", the brain can only process and respond to its own internal states that are [presumably] responses to that realm. Any 'art', therefore, would have to be a process that involved recognition and manipulation of one's own self. This holds true even from a materialistic outlook.

Cito di Pense wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:... Therefore, I reject your claim that 'visualisation' is [simply] nought but the mimicry-stimulation of visual pathways that have reported like-entities, before. Further, I claim that the trait of 'visualisation' (in its greatest fictional-extent), provides sufficient evidence for the existence of an entity that exhibits will; creativity; purpose.

I await your transcendent examples!

Especially if couched in parodies of mid-19th-Century rhetoric in response to Darwin. Simply nought but! Department of Redundancy Department. The mind boggles!

Jamest wishes that it was still 1875. James has Victorian sensibilities. Be nice to him, or he'll not invite you to tea. Then it will just be James and Vicar Bodgeworth.

Isn't he amazing? Like he stepped out of a time machine.

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:You've opened a whole can of worms, Graham. That is, your use and allegiance of/to the word 'visualisation' forces us to cross a significant threshold, into the habitation of creativity; will; purpose.

Actually I think it supports my position, but if you can invent something with no antecedents, a genuinely new idea from nothing but your own mind, then I will have to revise my position.

You really have opened up a whole can of worms you bad materialist!

How could a human walk to a new place like the new 7-11 (using nought but your brain ) if he had never walked there before?