Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 6

[Constance]

Of course any discussion of psychology will involve consciousness. @Constance actually articulated best out different interests re consciousness at the start of this particular thread:

Constance said: @Soupie continues to want to know 'how' the biologically evolved enablements that Pharoah delineates produce protoconsciousness and consciousness in living organisms. [As I see it, this goes to the root of the hard problem, and we do not yet know enough about nature to solve it.]

Constance often focuses on the phenomenology of experience; I'm primarily focused on how and why experience exists from a metaphysical perspective.

So while I find many of her comments and shared articles fascinating, since they don't deal directly with the HP, I often don't engage in discussion of them.

I'm not suggesting her focus/interest is in any way negative, just that it's different from mine.

The hard problem recognized by David Chalmers has been recognized in phenomenological philosophy from its beginnings at the turn of the 20th century and also in Eastern philosophy for millenia. In Western philosophy in the current era of interdisciplinary consciousness studies the most productive work on the hard problem continues to be done by Evan Thompson, as cited in this post near the beginning of Part 6 of this discussion:

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 6

I was linked back to that post today when @Soupie 'liked' it today. He also linked me back to by 'liking' the following post from the following page in Part 6:

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 6

 

[Soupie]

5:25 experience has a scale, the world does not ...proof that our experience has a varible representational scale ... proof that it's a model ...

5:40 strange reactions "everyone knew that" ... so he explains it in a different way:
beyond the farthest things you can perceive in all directions ... beyond all that is the inner surface of your true physical skull and beyond that is ... (the world)
Then he say how the other view is the incredible one.

Panpsychism?

15:35 all physical matter has a primal consciousness
again at 16:45 and then

17:00 dont tell me that the water does not feel the urgency that its clearly expressing

experience has a scale, the world does not ...proof that our experience has a varible representational scale ... proof that it's a model ... 5:25
5:40 strange reactions "everyone knew that"
beyond the farthest tings you can perc in all directions ... beyond al lthat is the inner surface of your true physical skull and beyond that is ...

Thanks for finding and posting.

I've heard the "perspective/scale" argument a few times now, and I'll confess I don't grok it. I guess I'm not fully understanding why perceived scale has to be a phenomenal construction and not a physical effect.

I'm going to look for a fuller explanation of this phenomenon.

 

[smcder]

Thanks for finding and posting.

I've heard the "perspective/scale" argument a few times now, and I'll confess I don't grok it. I guess I'm not fully understanding why perceived scale has to be a phenomenal construction and not a physical effect.

I'm going to look for a fuller explanation of this phenomenon.

Lehar's explanation begins about the 4:00 minute mark. 5:1

As I understand it his argument is that sense "our experience" has the property of scale (smaller for far objects and larger for near objects) and the world does not (the world does not have any scale, it is the size it is) this is proof that our experience has a scale and that is proof that it is a model and not the world itself. (unless of course the world scales to our experience of it)

Around 5:40 he begins the explanation about the inner skull and the outside world:

5:15 "Are we living in a construct?"

Beyond the farthest things you can see in all directions ... beyond that is the true physical surface of your inner skull and beyond that skull is an unimaginably vast etc etc of which everything you see here is a miniature replica (not the exact wording)

 

[Constance]

From the coda to "Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction" by Wallace Stevens:

". . . They will get it straight one day at the Sorbonne.
We shall return at twilight from the lecture
Pleased that the irrational is rational. . . ."

 

[Constance]

Phenomenology is bracketing off assumptions, you can't hold onto those assumptions and do phenomenology. It's hard to argue that, to get "under" it as a good starting point because it's a direct examination of experience (which includes our assumptions). So what is conveyed by words to the phenomenologist is opaque to the non-phenomenologist.

@Constance, do I understand your position here correctly?

Yes.

 

[Soupie]

Lehar's explanation begins about the 4:00 minute mark

Yeah, thats what I'm referring to. I didnt follow it.

 

[Soupie]

Lehar's explanation begins about the 4:00 minute mark. 5:1

As I understand it his argument is that sense "our experience" has the property of scale (smaller for far objects and larger for near objects) and the world does not (the world does not have any scale, it is the size it is) this is proof that our experience has a scale and that is proof that it is a model and not the world itself. (unless of course the world scales to our experience of it)

Around 5:40 he begins the explanation about the inner skull and the outside world:

5:15 "Are we living in a construct?"

Beyond the farthest things you can see in all directions ... beyond that is the true physical surface of your inner skull and beyond that skull is an unimaginably vast etc etc of which everything you see here is a miniature replica (not the exact wording)

Here's a great explanation of the effect.

Visual angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The brain's primary visual cortex (area V1 or Brodmann area 17) contains a spatially isomorphic representation of the retina (see retinotopy). Loosely speaking, it is a distorted "map" of the retina. Accordingly, the size

of a given retinal image determines the extent of the neural activity pattern eventually generated in area V1 by the associated retinal activity pattern. Murray, Boyaci, & Kersten (2006) recently used Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that an increase in a viewed target's visual angle [visual angle depends on how far away an object is - Soupie], which increases

, also increases the extent of the corresponding neural activity pattern in area V1.

The observers in Murray 'et al's' experiment viewed a flat picture with two discs that subtended the same visual angle

and formed retinal images of the same size

, but the perceived angular size

of one was about 17% larger than for the other, due to differences in the background patterns for the disks. It was shown that the areas of the activity in V1 related to the disks were of unequal size, despite the fact that the retinal images were the same size. This size difference in area V1 correlated with the 17% illusory difference between the perceived visual angles. This finding has implications for spatial illusions such as the visual angle illusion.[5]"

The physical mechanism can be manipulated to cause two objects of the same size to be perceived as quite different sizes.

 

[Soupie]

Panpsychism?

There is a paper I read a month or so ago, and in the paper an individual who suffered a stroke shares how it has altered her perception of the world. But there is a very interesting bit to it that the authors of the paper do not address.

Ive been wanting to bring it here to this thread, and I will soon. It doesn't speak directly to panpsychism per se, but it hints at something. At least I think it does.

 

[Constance]

Perceived visual angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Randall]

Now I'd like to understand your focus on, to quote: "... why experience exists from a metaphysical perspective."

That @Soupie 's focus - the quote from @Soupie is:

@Constance often focuses on the phenomenology of experience; I'm primarily focused on how and why experience exists from a metaphysical perspective.

Because here: Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 6 you said, to quote: " Constance often focuses on the phenomenology of experience; I'm primarily focused on how and why experience exists from a metaphysical perspective." So the way it's presented in that post, it looks like you said that. I'm guessing I should not be making that assumption now?

 

[Soupie]

Here's a great explanation of the effect.

Visual angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The brain's primary visual cortex (area V1 or Brodmann area 17) contains a spatially isomorphic representation of the retina (see retinotopy). Loosely speaking, it is a distorted "map" of the retina. Accordingly, the size

of a given retinal image determines the extent of the neural activity pattern eventually generated in area V1 by the associated retinal activity pattern. Murray, Boyaci, & Kersten (2006) recently used Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that an increase in a viewed target's visual angle [visual angle depends on how far away an object is - Soupie], which increases

, also increases the extent of the corresponding neural activity pattern in area V1.

The observers in Murray 'et al's' experiment viewed a flat picture with two discs that subtended the same visual angle

and formed retinal images of the same size

, but the perceived angular size

of one was about 17% larger than for the other, due to differences in the background patterns for the disks. It was shown that the areas of the activity in V1 related to the disks were of unequal size, despite the fact that the retinal images were the same size. This size difference in area V1 correlated with the 17% illusory difference between the perceived visual angles. This finding has implications for spatial illusions such as the visual angle illusion.[5]"

The physical mechanism can be manipulated to cause two objects of the same size to be perceived as quite different sizes.

That is an extremely powerful illusion! The orange circles are the same size in reality, but are two different sizes in phenomenal reality.

Edit: The illusion is so strong, im having a hard time believing its real.

Edit: Ha, measured them on my iPad. Will be different size on different screens, but both dots are 7/16ths of an inch on my screen. Wow.

 

[smcder]

Because here: Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 6 you said, to quote: " Constance often focuses on the phenomenology of experience; I'm primarily focused on how and why experience exists from a metaphysical perspective." So the way it's presented in that post, it looks like you said that. I'm guessing I should not be making that assumption now?

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 6

 

[smcder]

That is an extremely powerful illusion! The orange circles are the same size in reality, but are two different sizes in phenomenal reality.

Edit: The illusion is so strong, im having a hard time believing its real.

Edit: Ha, measured them on my iPad. Will be different size on different screens, but both dots are 7/16ths of an inch on my screen. Wow.

Which ones are the orange circles?

 

[smcder]

Because here: Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 6 you said, to quote: " Constance often focuses on the phenomenology of experience; I'm primarily focused on how and why experience exists from a metaphysical perspective." So the way it's presented in that post, it looks like you said that. I'm guessing I should not be making that assumption now?

Did you want me to have said that?

 

[smcder]

Here's a great explanation of the effect.

Visual angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The brain's primary visual cortex (area V1 or Brodmann area 17) contains a spatially isomorphic representation of the retina (see retinotopy). Loosely speaking, it is a distorted "map" of the retina. Accordingly, the size

of a given retinal image determines the extent of the neural activity pattern eventually generated in area V1 by the associated retinal activity pattern. Murray, Boyaci, & Kersten (2006) recently used Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that an increase in a viewed target's visual angle [visual angle depends on how far away an object is - Soupie], which increases

, also increases the extent of the corresponding neural activity pattern in area V1.

The observers in Murray 'et al's' experiment viewed a flat picture with two discs that subtended the same visual angle

and formed retinal images of the same size

, but the perceived angular size

of one was about 17% larger than for the other, due to differences in the background patterns for the disks. It was shown that the areas of the activity in V1 related to the disks were of unequal size, despite the fact that the retinal images were the same size. This size difference in area V1 correlated with the 17% illusory difference between the perceived visual angles. This finding has implications for spatial illusions such as the visual angle illusion.[5]"

The physical mechanism can be manipulated to cause two objects of the same size to be perceived as quite different sizes.

What is your understanding of Velman's opposition to this view?

 

[Soupie]

Which ones are the orange circles?

So I guess the illusion works in the absence of color? The two center circles are the same size, but are perceived to be different sizes.

 

[smcder]

So I guess the illusion works in the absence of color? The two center circles are the same size, but are perceived to be different sizes.

there is a set of large circles on the left with a circle in the center, there is a set of smaller circles on the right with a circle in its center, these two (central) circles are the same size.

 

[Soupie]

What is your understanding of Velman's opposition to this view?

That is the question! Honestly, I'm not sure. I still don't have a grasp of his notion of Perceptual Projection.

He seems to agree that phenomenal reality is instantiated by internal states, but he seems to take issue with the notion that phenomenal reality is located in the brain...

I'm anxious to understand his perspective.

 

[Soupie]

there is a set of large circles on the left with a circle in the center, there is a set of smaller circles on the right with a circle in its center, these two (central) circles are the same size.

Correct.

 

[Constance]

He seems to agree that phenomenal reality is instantiated by internal states, but he seems to take issue with the notion that phenomenal reality is located in the brain...

Go back to the text. You're misinterpreting what Velmans writes, and using the vague word 'instantiated' to serve the tendentious purposes of the approach you prefer.