if you believe there is no experiencer, then your answer must be no. if on the other hand, like me you think that all info in the brain is not esoteric/arcane but it being experienced is not, then can we call the knowledge as we the experiencer knows it purely physical when the entity reading it is not?
I saw on a documentary a diamond bladed slicer, which can slice a dead brain at the cellular level. Eventually when computers are powerful enough, it will be possible to read the full set of info in someone’s [dead]brain. To me this is the nub of it, we will find all info and deduce the nature of the full instrument, and it will be a bit like a very complex programmable camcorder ~ but with no viewing screen. Naturally we could put a camera in a living brain and not see visual mental qualia, or thoughts as we experience them, we will just see electrical signals flowing between neurons.
I think the experiencer can bisect such info at any point, and in doing so read it [same as any instrument]. The consciousness flows all over the brain and is not centred anywhere, ~ there is no part of the brain specifically reliable for consciousness. Now I also think that part of the equation is also physical ~ the ebb and flow of electromagnetic field/s, but none of that tells us anything about the experiencer, even though the info it experiences is physical.
The equation thus becomes simple, there is something outside the system and it is what we the experiencer actually is: When [physical] info is experienced, it becomes thought, when it is not being experienced it is not thought and yet IS the same thing [the same physical information] as when not thought! There is no difference et al.
Ergo knowledge as we experience it, is arcane. I use that term because I don’t have a term to describe that as I am seeing it here. I am not attempting to say that the experiencer has or can obtain esoteric knowledge, as that’s a different philosophical issue. Here I want to focus on the worldly experience and not the spiritual.
Even if there is, its the same as what I was saying about em fields and physical info, the experiencer is seeing colours which are only represented in the world [by transparent photons]. …You’ve seen the optical illusion tests which show that the brain is composing the colours which aren’t actually there surely?
Please take the time to read it, I kept it short as possible.
Thing is, I try to keep my brain free of unfacts. So i dont want to convolute my brain by infecting it with material that points me in teh wrong direction.
It does show us that the colours we are seeing are not the same as those in the world! Don’t have a link, I expect people to know this already. Where’s your link anyway, I want to see the science on this ‘viewscreen in the brain’ that you can see with a HD fibre optic surgical camera!
hmm I suppose its possible that the brain may be making photons such to produce the colours we see ~ even if they aren’t the same as those in the world. I can’t know that until I’ve seen evidence that the brain does produce colours [you can’t film?].
Whether or not makes no difference, just like whether suzie thinks purple is green makes no difference, the relative proportions are kept the same identity.Nor does it matter if the brain fills it in with stuff because the bottom line is it is stuff we see and ultimately, measurable.
Anyone with a serious interest in consciousnes knows who daniel is and can find the evidence.
You cannot see it with a camera because the electrical signals are inside the neurons. But you should be able to see the actual net of the screen itself. But it will probably look the same as the other nets so you wont be able to really find it.
It produces electrical signals, with presumably the same wavelengths analogous to the colors to maintain the same identity. Even if the wavelengths are shifted 50% and the colors are inverted uniformly the identity is the same.
This is similar to audio in the brain, it converts physical atom audio to the equivalent electrical waves.
I have read some of his papers [some of my early posts here are on his work], but not anything which speaks of a viewscreen in the brain that you can see with a camera. His philosophy is usually thought experiments and what have you.
Sure. But i’m talking about a photonic image. I already expected there to be electrical signals, which represent sound and colour etc, but its the lack of actual colour/light and sound which is questionable.
Perhaps the brain is hearing with the ears and seeing with the eye’s, and the electrics inside the brain configure that much like a processor in a camcorder. Yet that doesn’t come close to explaining how we see dreams i.e. without the eyes! edit; oh wait, it does you are right. if the brain is composing photonic images and making sounds with mirror neurons, that explains everything.