Qualia and subjective experience

[Treebeard]

[quote=""Speakpigeon""]...
I think that's one of the most intriguing aspect of consciousness that we are effectively conscious of complex objects.[/quote]

Several years ago during a discussion on FRDB's Free Will sub forum I suggested that we need a Consciousness sub forum. I suspect most of us consider it too baffling to approach. But dancing around the issue leads to lots of disagreement and confusion anyway.

While I can't focus my attention at the same time on both the bird just singing now and the word I am looking at on the screen the fact remains that either the word or the singing is not some elementary value. They have extension, complexity, structure etc. and these I am fully conscious of. It's not much, admittedly, but these are not pointlike values. How's that possible at all?
EB

How is consciousness possible at all? I haven't resolved that to my satisfaction. But its apparent to me that things have no value except in relation to other things. The brain creates a model of the world of which birds are a part and which is extended into the various types of birds. I say "Paris" and it brings up a complex structure of possibilities that you can daydream about for hours. How can you say you're fully conscious of Paris except as a point (or perhaps gateway is a better word) from which to explore a rich array of relationships?

[Juma]

I think that's one of the most intriguing aspect of consciousness that we are effectively conscious of complex objects. While I can't focus my attention at the same time on both the bird just singing now and the word I am looking at on the screen the fact remains that either the word or the singing is not some elementary value. They have extension, complexity, structure etc. and these I am fully conscious of. It's not much, admittedly, but these are not pointlike values. How's that possible at all? EB

Why would they be "pointlike"?

[Juma]

This is what you need to prove. You don't seem to realise that however reasonable this claim may seem to you the fact is that you don't know that it is true

There is no reason to believe anything else.

[none_]

[quote=""Speakpigeon""]

Again, brain patterns are the experience, so there is no duality in terms of experience and the experiencer.

This is what you need to prove.

You don't seem to realise that however reasonable this claim may seem to you the fact is that you don't know that it is true and nobody does as far as I know. This is why you need to prove it's true.

I have to add that I don't think that this claim would seem so reasonable to most people. I think most people would say they don't know. That's the only reasonable attitude to have.
EB[/QUOTE]
doesn't amnesia take care of your proposition?
people have damaged brains and they don't store what is conscious experience the very essence of experience as electrical impulses.

[DBT]

[quote=""Speakpigeon""]

Again, brain patterns are the experience, so there is no duality in terms of experience and the experiencer.

This is what you need to prove.

You don't seem to realise that however reasonable this claim may seem to you the fact is that you don't know that it is true and nobody does as far as I know. This is why you need to prove it's true.

I have to add that I don't think that this claim would seem so reasonable to most people. I think most people would say they don't know. That's the only reasonable attitude to have.
EB[/QUOTE]

I have given descriptions and logical reasons for the necessity of perception. So again, speaking logically, how are you to have an experience without being aware or conscious? You don't. You won't. You cannot. This is a no brainer.

I've asked you to give a single example that would disprove the necessity of perception, and said that I would retract if you did, but of course that is impossible. You know you can't.

[Treebeard]

[quote=""steve_bnk""]...
Art, music, dance, literature, poetry are means of communicating a subjective human experience. Ever listen to instrumental music without any words that made you a bit teary eyed?

Some day a detailed working model of the brain in toto may be developed. It may explain the detailed physical process of thoughts and emotions down to the neurons, but it can never adequately address the human experience.

It cuts both ways. You can say metaphysics is useless and ignores the physical nature of brain. On the other hand thinking and all the metaphysics are functions of the brain. You can not arbitrarily dismiss metaphysics.
...[/quote]

Metaphysics is based entirely on symbolic logic, analogy, metaphor, and simile. In that way it's more similar to art than science. But I think all aspects of human consciousness as well as subconscious processes are based on how things are related to each other, rather than to the "thing-in-itself". And I suspect this will prove to be true about how we eventually come to define the subject within the subject experience as it arises in the brain.