SpeedOfSound wrote:I dreaming, should my suspicions turn out to be true, is a skill of creative storytelling. The other thing it can do is great novels.

OK, but it can be very rich, sensory and emotional, right? It's much more than story telling. It's not linguistic.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:For one thing if that were the case then we could pretty much prove that idealism vs realism is just a fair coin toss. I think it misleading to say we are making up the story of what we experience.

Is that why people are so stuck on the unconscious super-genie? The great brain? It stands in for Berkeley's god?

I'm not saying that. Note I keep referencing 'meaning' and how neural responses are tied to real world patterns, relations and control. It's all functional and fit for surviving in a real world. In particular the very capacity to 'confabulate' relies on exposure to real world patterns of stimulus. Just being able to think seems to require a real world beyond the conscious mind.
...

Okay. This is what I mean by semantics in the world not the brain. I agree.

Ok. I say the semantics is in the brain, grounded in the world. The world just is. The brain makes the connections that build meaning about the world. Most parts of the world lack structures to do that. Nothing in the apple is about you, but something in you is about the apple. Whatever in you is about the apple is that way because of contact with the apple.

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I dreaming, should my suspicions turn out to be true, is a skill of creative storytelling. The other thing it can do is great novels.

OK, but it can be very rich, sensory and emotional, right? It's much more than story telling. It's not linguistic.

Emotional for sure. But when I make up stories I feel the same way. I imagine them in detail. Dreams seem a little bit less voluntary. But my dreams are nothing like the sensory vividness while I am awake. They are dark and patchy even on sunny days.

My dream suspicions are just an idea. I am guessing you want to make a case for the brain making up it's sensory experience? Which would also be a case for strong representationalism.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I dreaming, should my suspicions turn out to be true, is a skill of creative storytelling. The other thing it can do is great novels.

OK, but it can be very rich, sensory and emotional, right? It's much more than story telling. It's not linguistic.

Emotional for sure. But when I make up stories I feel the same way. I imagine them in detail. Dreams seem a little bit less voluntary. But my dreams are nothing like the sensory vividness while I am awake. They are dark and patchy even on sunny days.

My dream suspicions are just an idea. I am guessing you want to make a case for the brain making up it's sensory experience? Which would also be a case for strong representationalism.

Well, some people will have more vivid dreams than others. I sometimes have very vivid immersive dreams which seem as real or more real than waking experience, in all sensory modes. Of course this is how I remember them moments after regaining waking consciousness, but I remember them as clearly as I remember waking experiences from a couple of seconds ago.

I assume that hyper-real dreams are not uncommon and are many people's first prompt to question the nature of reality. When you wake from what seems a more vivid and real experience than what you wake into you ask yourself 'which experience is the real one?' The answer, for me, lies in the consistency and regularity of waking life versus the bizarre disjointed inconsistent nature of many dreams.

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:For one thing if that were the case then we could pretty much prove that idealism vs realism is just a fair coin toss. I think it misleading to say we are making up the story of what we experience.

Is that why people are so stuck on the unconscious super-genie? The great brain? It stands in for Berkeley's god?

I'm not saying that. Note I keep referencing 'meaning' and how neural responses are tied to real world patterns, relations and control. It's all functional and fit for surviving in a real world. In particular the very capacity to 'confabulate' relies on exposure to real world patterns of stimulus. Just being able to think seems to require a real world beyond the conscious mind.
...

Okay. This is what I mean by semantics in the world not the brain. I agree.

Ok. I say the semantics is in the brain, grounded in the world. The world just is. The brain makes the connections that build meaning about the world. Most parts of the world lack structures to do that. Nothing in the apple is about you, but something in you is about the apple. Whatever in you is about the apple is that way because of contact with the apple.

This is where I parted ways with a number of philosophers and some neuroscientists. I guess it's a subtle and difficult distinction.

There is something about apples that makes them apples and the brain has nothing to do with that. Genes has to do with that. What the brain does is find that something on having a lot of real apples in front of it and lock onto it when presented with a particular apple. That is the kind of language I am willing to allow.

There is efficiency to consider here and also the reality of what a brain can and cannot do. We give it way too much credit in the imagination and representation department. When there are apples in the room the brain needs just the barest marker to keep track of them and when looking at an apple the sensory cortex provides the conduit to all the information needed to see one. We do not have to imagine the light play from an apple when the light play is already IN play.

I went to a process over time consideration in how we sense and how we learn. The other way just does not make sense to me anatomically. Though I am always willing to look at new research that proves strong representation.

SpeedOfSound wrote:There is efficiency to consider here and also the reality of what a brain can and cannot do. We give it way too much credit in the imagination and representation department. When there are apples in the room the brain needs just the barest marker to keep track of them and when looking at an apple the sensory cortex provides the conduit to all the information needed to see one. We do not have to imagine the light play from an apple when the light play is already IN play.

Yet clearly people can do that. We can imagine the play of light over an imaginary apple, even if locked, blindfold, in a bare room with no apples. We can learn how light plays over surfaces then imagine how it would play over a surface we have never seen.

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I dreaming, should my suspicions turn out to be true, is a skill of creative storytelling. The other thing it can do is great novels.

OK, but it can be very rich, sensory and emotional, right? It's much more than story telling. It's not linguistic.

Emotional for sure. But when I make up stories I feel the same way. I imagine them in detail. Dreams seem a little bit less voluntary. But my dreams are nothing like the sensory vividness while I am awake. They are dark and patchy even on sunny days.

My dream suspicions are just an idea. I am guessing you want to make a case for the brain making up it's sensory experience? Which would also be a case for strong representationalism.

Well, some people will have more vivid dreams than others. I sometimes have very vivid immersive dreams which seem as real or more real than waking experience, in all sensory modes. Of course this is how I remember them moments after regaining waking consciousness, but I remember them as clearly as I remember waking experiences from a couple of seconds ago.

I assume that hyper-real dreams are not uncommon and are many people's first prompt to question the nature of reality. When you wake from what seems a more vivid and real experience than what you wake into you ask yourself 'which experience is the real one?' The answer, for me, lies in the consistency and regularity of waking life versus the bizarre disjointed inconsistent nature of many dreams.

As a sober addict I have a class of dreams that are horrifying and real. Using dreams. I would describe them as vivid and so real I can't shake them for hours and sometimes days. They are memories of course as all dreams are and I have vivid memories of things that actually happened too. Memory recall for me is defined by one powerful thing. The emotions they trigger. Olfactory memories almost knock me on the floor. But if I sit down and try and take a look at what kind of detail I can actually muster in other sensory modalities it always pales compared to actual sensory experience. I am remembering with an emotional spice added and the actual content of the memory is more memory about than memory of.

But then we have individuals who use different portions of their brains for different things. we have artists with amazing detailed recall of visual scenes.

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:There is efficiency to consider here and also the reality of what a brain can and cannot do. We give it way too much credit in the imagination and representation department. When there are apples in the room the brain needs just the barest marker to keep track of them and when looking at an apple the sensory cortex provides the conduit to all the information needed to see one. We do not have to imagine the light play from an apple when the light play is already IN play.

Yet clearly people can do that. We can imagine the play of light over an imaginary apple, even if locked, blindfold, in a bare room with no apples. We can learn how light plays over surfaces then imagine how it would play over a surface we have never seen.

But I know the difference and the difference is in the amount of detail. I have never imagined myself a world, not even a moment of a world.

Surprisingly this is where we meet and agree on one point. We have a running narrative going that has us believing a lot more is going on in our heads than actually is. But there are twist and turns here that need to be carefully worked out. I am hoping I can do that with my orange part.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Surprisingly this is where we meet and agree on one point. We have a running narrative going that has us believing a lot more is going on in our heads than actually is. But there are twist and turns here that need to be carefully worked out. I am hoping I can do that with my orange part.

I'd say there is a lot more going on in our heads that we can know. The 'narrative' is simpler yet grander than the reality.

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Surprisingly this is where we meet and agree on one point. We have a running narrative going that has us believing a lot more is going on in our heads than actually is. But there are twist and turns here that need to be carefully worked out. I am hoping I can do that with my orange part.

I'd say there is a lot more going on in our heads that we can know. The 'narrative' is simpler yet grander than the reality.

That is where folk psychology meets reality. I have been reviewing some Churchland. Very interesting. He's probably the only guy that gets more shit tossed at him than me. Dennett's right up there though. Oddly Chalmers is almost a rock-star. Hmmmm...

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Surprisingly this is where we meet and agree on one point. We have a running narrative going that has us believing a lot more is going on in our heads than actually is. But there are twist and turns here that need to be carefully worked out. I am hoping I can do that with my orange part.

I'd say there is a lot more going on in our heads that we can know. The 'narrative' is simpler yet grander than the reality.

When you say "simpler", I assume you are referring to the fact that the unconscious neural activity is simple, "low level" stuff, like data preparation. ("Low level" does not, of course, mean that there isn't much of it!)

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Surprisingly this is where we meet and agree on one point. We have a running narrative going that has us believing a lot more is going on in our heads than actually is. But there are twist and turns here that need to be carefully worked out. I am hoping I can do that with my orange part.

I'd say there is a lot more going on in our heads that we can know. The 'narrative' is simpler yet grander than the reality.

When you say "simpler", I assume you are referring to the fact that the unconscious neural activity is simple, "low level" stuff, like data preparation. ("Low level" does not, of course, mean that there isn't much of it!)

I mean the 'low level stuff' is very complex. The subjective experience is simple. The wind on my face, the taste of bacon. These are simpler than the mass of neural activity that gives rise to the experience. The experience is something I can seem to keep track of. I could not hope to track the neural activity.

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Surprisingly this is where we meet and agree on one point. We have a running narrative going that has us believing a lot more is going on in our heads than actually is. But there are twist and turns here that need to be carefully worked out. I am hoping I can do that with my orange part.

I'd say there is a lot more going on in our heads that we can know. The 'narrative' is simpler yet grander than the reality.

When you say "simpler", I assume you are referring to the fact that the unconscious neural activity is simple, "low level" stuff, like data preparation. ("Low level" does not, of course, mean that there isn't much of it!)

I mean the 'low level stuff' is very complex. The subjective experience is simple. The wind on my face, the taste of bacon. These are simpler than the mass of neural activity that gives rise to the experience. The experience is something I can seem to keep track of. I could not hope to track the neural activity.

But what about the orgainization of the low level stuff? Do you think that's complex too, or is there just lots of it?

# invitation = double('invitation', accept: true)
# user.accept_invitation(invitation)
# expect(invitation).to have_received(:accept)
#
# # You can also use most message expectations:
# expect(invitation).to have_received(:accept).with(mailer).once
def have_received(method_name, &block)
Matchers::HaveReceived.new(method_name, &block)
end

# @method expect
# Used to wrap an object in preparation for setting a mock expectation
# on it.

What do you see when you look at this?

What's a "mock expectation"?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:There is efficiency to consider here and also the reality of what a brain can and cannot do. We give it way too much credit in the imagination and representation department. When there are apples in the room the brain needs just the barest marker to keep track of them and when looking at an apple the sensory cortex provides the conduit to all the information needed to see one. We do not have to imagine the light play from an apple when the light play is already IN play.

Yet clearly people can do that. We can imagine the play of light over an imaginary apple, even if locked, blindfold, in a bare room with no apples. We can learn how light plays over surfaces then imagine how it would play over a surface we have never seen.

But I know the difference and the difference is in the amount of detail. I have never imagined myself a world, not even a moment of a world.

As a mental exercise sometimes I'll study a scene, or even just a leaf, then close my eyes and try to build up a vivid picture of it. Then I'll study it again for comparison with the mental image, then repeat the process, and so on. You're right that getting anything like an accurate HD photograph is extremely difficult, and I can't get anywhere close to that, but I've noticed I've become a lot better at this with practice. There are other ways of testing it, to some degree, by looking away and making a drawing/painting of the mental image and comparing the drawing to the scene. (I wonder how brilliantly detailed a mental image a visual genius could build up after, say, decades of daily training.)

I can seemingly build up brilliantly detailed and richly coloured mental visual scenes of complete fantasy, where the detail can be more-or-less arbitrary. But photorealistic mental images of any given scene in front of me: much more difficult.

I suppose similar exercises could be done for other senses, sound, etc; but there it would be difficult or impossible currently to test by a third party.

Matthew Shute wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:There is efficiency to consider here and also the reality of what a brain can and cannot do. We give it way too much credit in the imagination and representation department. When there are apples in the room the brain needs just the barest marker to keep track of them and when looking at an apple the sensory cortex provides the conduit to all the information needed to see one. We do not have to imagine the light play from an apple when the light play is already IN play.

Yet clearly people can do that. We can imagine the play of light over an imaginary apple, even if locked, blindfold, in a bare room with no apples. We can learn how light plays over surfaces then imagine how it would play over a surface we have never seen.

But I know the difference and the difference is in the amount of detail. I have never imagined myself a world, not even a moment of a world.

As a mental exercise sometimes I'll study a scene, or even just leaf, then close my eyes and try to build up a vivid picture of it. Then I'll study it again for comparison with the mental image, then repeat the process, and so on. You're right that getting anything like an accurate HD photograph is extremely difficult, and I can't get anywhere close to that, but I've noticed I've become a lot better at this with practice. There are other ways of testing it, to some degree, by looking away and making a drawing/painting of the mental image and comparing the drawing to the scene. (I wonder how brilliant detailed a mental image a visual genius could build up after, say, decades of daily training.)

I can seemingly build up brilliantly detailed and richly coloured mental visual scenes of complete fantasy, where the detail can be more-or-less arbitrary. But photorealistic mental images of any given scene in front of me: much more difficult.

I suppose similar exercises could be done for other senses, sound, etc; but there it would be difficult or impossible currently to test by a third party.

A while ago, I made a very similar post to yours, also directed at Speed. The only difference was that, at that time, he was arguing that we DO get a richly detailed image of the world. Good to see that he has changed his view, even if he now claims that he had his current view all along.

Experiences are obviously harder to understand from a neural perspective than they are from a sensory one for the latter is instantaneous whereas the former is not. There is no requirement for cognitive analysis with regard to the immediacy of an experience so the brain shall register a designated response to external stimuli regardless of whether it is comprehended or not. It would be interesting to know however whether what distinguishes the lower order thinking of experience recognition from the higher order thinking of abstract thought is simply neurons firing faster or something more complex than that. The frontal lobe is the part of the brain that specifically deals with thinking but is this all thinking or just higher order thinking ?

surreptitious57 wrote:Experiences are obviously harder to understand from a neural perspective than they are from a sensory one for the latter is instantaneous whereas the former is not. There is no requirement for cognitive analysis with regard to the immediacy of an experience so the brain shall register a designated response to external stimuli regardless of whether it is comprehended or not. It would be interesting to know however whether what distinguishes the lower order thinking of experience recognition from the higher order thinking of abstract thought is simply neurons firing faster or something more complex than that. The frontal lobe is the part of the brain that specifically deals with thinking but is this all thinking or just higher order thinking ?

I don't think sensory experience is instantaneous. There is good evidence to suggest it takes 100+ ms for sensory input to become an experience. Very short duration stimuli can go entirely unnoticed. This strongly suggests that there is a lot of 'analysis' required. What is not required is any conscious effort.

I think what distinguishes 'low order' from 'high order' is a mixture of things, including number of layers of abstraction from sensory input - position in a hierarchy of 'cognits', the complexity of a thing's behaviours. More complex patterns require more complex 'models' to understand them. I don't think it has to do with firing faster.