Illuminating the "hard problem of consciousness" mystery

David777

Well-known Member
Location
Silicon Valley
In neuroscience, the hard question is its greatest mystery. The "hard problem of consciousness" question asks why and how physical brain processes give rise to subjective experiences, or "qualia," such as the "redness" of red or the feeling of pain.

My own hypothesis on qualia within Earth animal creatures with neural system brains, is that the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena, are a result of location dependent 3-dimensional and power levels of standing wave brain wave oscillating electromagnetic fields.

Some neuroscientist and philosophers have always expected that mystery would never be solved. But I expect there will be a day when science shows textures in the subtle features of those fields that our current instrumentation is not yet incapable and sensitive enough of showing. And recently, there has been a breakthrough:

 

I never delved into any neurosciences, although it was briefly discussed when I was studying aviation engineering many years ago. However, we never went so deep into it that I heard of qualia. So, because I am supposed to be detail oriented, here is my question.

Why is qualia important? I know what it is, but know little about how it’s used. (Inquiring minds want to know.)
 
David777 is way at the head of the class on "consciousness." My poor contribution is that any dumb human has an incredible amount of data stored behind the eyes. Just knowing that things like grass is green, and the sky blue are stored away in that vast brain. Even when you think of all the ordinary stuff, it's enormous amount of data. And considering this vast storehouse of data, why did that jerk cut me off, yesterday?
 

In my view, consciousness and qualia can be simplistically defined as experiences, and entirely subjective. One can understand the mechanics, but you will never be able to equate them. We see colors differently, taste things differently, and experience things differently.

We aren't in touch with reality directly. Our brain is a reality simulator that collects information (Contaminated though it may be), and generates a reality for us we can function in and live life. Our emotions, beliefs, memories, and a host of other things come into play as the symphony of consciousness is orchestrated together one moment at a time. Even if we could know what it's like to be a bat, your knowing and my knowing would always be different.
 
I asked my tablet if "qualia" is for making further distinctions of our environment to help us survive...:)

Your intuition is on track with a prominent theory in philosophy and neuroscience. Qualia provide an evolutionary advantage by giving organisms a rich, subjective way to differentiate between stimuli that may be physically similar but have different survival implications. For example, the unique "badness" of the quale of pain, compared to the quale of a pleasant touch, gives us a powerful, immediate signal to avoid harm.
 
In my view, consciousness and qualia can be simplistically defined as experiences, and entirely subjective. One can understand the mechanics, but you will never be able to equate them. We see colors differently, taste things differently, and experience things differently.

We aren't in touch with reality directly. Our brain is a reality simulator that collects information (Contaminated though it may be), and generates a reality for us we can function in and live life. Our emotions, beliefs, memories, and a host of other things come into play as the symphony of consciousness is orchestrated together one moment at a time. Even if we could know what it's like to be a bat, your knowing and my knowing would always be different.

is:
One can understand the mechanics, but you will never be able to equate them. We see colors differently, taste things differently, and experience things differently.

could be:
We see colors somewhat differently, taste things somewhat differently, and experience things somewhat differently.

What my posted news shows, is that unknown range given technology, of "somewhat differently", is now being reduced and likely to be greatly so in near decades, though agree, there is a limit to what we humans can ever know between individuals while allowing only ethical research that doesn't harm patients by damaging patient brains from internal invasive instrumentation.

Brain Scan Machines: Unveiling the Mysteries of the Human Mind

...Today, we have a veritable arsenal of brain scan machines at our disposal, each with its own strengths and applications. From the widely-used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to the lightning-fast Computed Tomography (CT) scans, and from the metabolic insights of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) to the real-time functional mapping of fMRI, these tools have become indispensable in both clinical practice and research settings...
 
Again, just my view, but as I alluded to, it is one thing to map pathways and activity in the brain that either gives rise to consciousness or contributes to it, but it is quite another to share the experience. Where I part company with the hopes of this endeavor, is that they seem to be focusing on the brain and possibly tracing its mind-blowing connections that could lead them to the holy grail.

I don't think we are organisms with brains, I think we are brains. When you touch something, where does your body become your brain? When you taste something, hear something, or see something, where do those sensors stop being your body, and become your brain? Even if I could map your neural connections, I could never know what it's like to be David777, because your body, taste buds, eyesight, hearing, skin, emotions, etc... are unique to you, not to mention the nearly 95% of neural processing that takes place in the unconscious.

They’re subjective by nature because of the mind-body problem. You can describe them, measure the brain waves associated with them, or observe someone’s behavior in response to them, but you can’t directly share them. because each one of us is remarkably unlike any other.

I had a dental appt the other day for cleaning, and the hygienist who had been at it for 34 years said: "Did you know everyone's tounge is different?" To which I said, "What do you mean?" She went on to explain that everyone's tongue has a unique pattern. She even held up a mirror for me, and pointed out the pattern there. Apparently, it's like a fingerprint that's even different with identical twins.

Anyway, for whatever it's worth, I believe that the "qualia" (As I understand it) refers to the individual subjective experience, and this will always be unique because we are.
 
Thanks @bobcat for your excellent discussion inputs.

We are more in agreement than we are able to easily communicate with limited, tersely created ideas and language terminology. That is why I changed different to "somewhat different" so the meaning was not absolute. In science sense discussions, one will often read those claiming we all see colors differently and then use the men's X-chromosome argument where 8% of men have varying levels of abnormal color vision while women are 0.5%. But when one looks at data, research shows that 92% of humans have reasonably normal testable similar color vision.

Of those 8% of men with abnormalities, their issues vary to degrees because although some may not have normal amounts of the 3 retina rod and cone types, such is usually not total as tends to be argued. Instead, someone may have 90% of normal numbers of red cones causing mild protanomaly while another person may be 75% and another 25%. Beyond red-green issues, anomalies become significantly rarer.

090525a.jpg

Understanding colour blindness | Lenstore.co.uk

The same applies to other sense issues to different degrees because each of our human senses as physically large organic beings with billions of cells, are the result of specialized tissues with large numbers of sense cells and sense neural system circuits for which our genetic design varies somewhat in amounts created even without basic changed genetic issues. I would expect the sense of taste varies most, since what humans eat varies regionally greatly, so genetic variations likely readily occur.

As for where the research is heading, I only vaguely understand the science and processes being used and can only speculate from opinions of experts how much understanding may eventually be possible. I can state that if future measurements of specific area brain electromagnetic (EMC) fields for two individuals are nearly identical, that it is more logical to expect their conscious experience is likely to be reasonably similar. Others may argue even if so, their conscious experience may still be radically different since the brain is extremely complex with interactions between elements. I would not lean towards that opinion.

Below is a diagram of a common physics class experiment with water waves. Waves propagate from the board against opposite container walls. Depending on the amount of board movement and its frequency and distance from reflecting ends, waves change. My input here and hypothesis is that, our brain neural tissues are like the end container walls. What I speculate is, qualia is primarily the result of the fine detailed 3-dimensional shape of those container walls. Thus evolution over long time scales, creates structures that result in variations in the shape of resulting EMC standing waves against those structures.

090525b.jpg

Watch the below YouTube video from the 13:00 point through 23:00 that shows what such standing waves look like. My hypothesis is that perceived qualia results from the resulting 3-dimensional resulting phenomenon against such structures. When one takes psychedelics, field power amplitudes have been shown to increase that results in greater perceived detail as one might then expect. It may be, that some wave phenomenon for different senses in different parts of the brain may have identical EMC structures but that perceptual experiences are greatly different because of varying ways the rest of those areas of the brain processes such information.


In any case, as you noted, there will always be uncertainties of what is really going on in the brains of individuals. We simply cannot and will never know. But science is rapidly moving closer to understanding far more than was the case even a couple decades ago.
 
Last edited:
Thanks @bobcat for your excellent discussion inputs.

We are more in agreement than we are able to easily communicate with limited, tersely created ideas and language terminology. That is why I changed different to "somewhat different" so the meaning was not absolute. In science sense discussions, one will often read those claiming we all see colors differently and then use the men's X-chromosome argument where 8% of men have varying levels of abnormal color vision while women are 0.5%. But when one looks at data, research shows that 92% of humans have reasonably normal testable similar color vision.

Of those 8% of men with abnormalities, their issues vary to degrees because although some may not have normal amounts of the 3 retina rod and cone types, such is usually not total as tends to be argued. Instead, someone may have 90% of normal numbers of red cones causing mild protanomaly while another person may be 75% and another 25%. Beyond red-green issues, anomalies become significantly rarer.

View attachment 448027

Understanding colour blindness | Lenstore.co.uk

The same applies to other sense issues to different degrees because each of our human senses as physically large organic beings with billions of cells, are the result of specialized tissues with large numbers of sense cells and sense neural system circuits for which our genetic design varies somewhat in amounts created even without basic changed genetic issues. I would expect the sense of taste varies most, since what humans eat varies regionally greatly, so genetic variations likely readily occur.

As for where the research is heading, I only vaguely understand the science and processes being used and can only speculate from opinions of experts how much understanding may eventually be possible. I can state that if future measurements of specific area brain electromagnetic (EMC) fields for two individuals are nearly identical, that it is more logical to expect their conscious experience is likely to be reasonably similar. Others may argue even if so, their conscious experience may still be radically different since the brain is extremely complex with interactions between elements. I would not lean towards that opinion.

Below is a diagram of a common physics class experiment with water waves. Waves propagate from the board against opposite container walls. Depending on the amount of board movement and its frequency and distance from reflecting ends, waves change. My input here and hypothesis is that, our brain neural tissues are like the end container walls. What I speculate is, qualia is primarily the result of the fine detailed 3-dimensional shape of those container walls. Thus evolution over long time scales, creates structures that result in variations in the shape of resulting EMC standing waves against those structures.

View attachment 448028

Watch the below YouTube video from the 13:00 point through 23:00 that shows what such standing waves look like. My hypothesis is that perceived qualia results from the resulting 3-dimensional resulting phenomenon against such structures. When one takes psychedelics, field power amplitudes have been shown to increase that results in greater perceived detail as one might then expect. It may be, that some wave phenomenon for different senses in different parts of the brain may have identical EMC structures but that perceptual experiences are greatly different because of varying ways the rest of those areas of the brain processes such information.


In any case, as you noted, there will always be uncertainties of what is really going on in the brains of individuals. We simply cannot and will never know. But science is rapidly moving closer to understanding far more than was the case even a couple decades ago.
Well, I can appreciate all the mechanics involved, and perhaps it's just me, but I feel there will always be a gap in the conversion of the physical world to qualia. To elaborate, the “gap” entails the lack of a scientific explanation for the subjective aspects of consciousness and how it feels for one to experience the physical aspects of the world. The subjective experience is irreducible to functions and performance because it relates to the way it feels for me to have this experience.

Take something as simple as a kiss. Two people press their lips together and move their heads a little. One could map the neural pathways involved in an attempt to document and even describe the feeling. But they are not me. How it feels to me depends on so many other things (Who it is, do I like the way she kisses, is she into me, what is she thinking, what do I want, how does she feel in my arms, and probably a great many other things happening unconsciously.

My first romantic kiss at 15 kept me awake all night because it was my first experience, and it awakened a whole new world to me. Even kissing in the moonlight can be different than at midday. We are very complex creatures.
 
Remember that news sensation in 2015 where people were debating whether a dress was gold or blue? Well, the below gets to the heart of that illusion and more. Note, I did start a post here on the checkerboard illusion that was ignored.

This 53 minute NOVA PBS documentary that ran 2 years ago, will shock most people, destroying what they thought their perceptual reality was. Although I tried to emphasize, processed perception is TOTALLY inside our brains within our heads and not where it seems to be coming from in our PNS senses, I expect most reading what I wrote didn't really grasp it. The below YouTube video gets to the heart of a key part of my opening post, that what we perceive in our minds is not a direct presentation from what comes in from our senses. It is much better through using demonstrated illusions at communicating understanding that, is only a recent decade's advancement in neuroscience.


Your Brain: Perception Deception | Full Documentary | NOVA | PBS

 
In neuroscience, the hard question is its greatest mystery. The "hard problem of consciousness" question asks why and how physical brain processes give rise to subjective experiences, or "qualia," such as the "redness" of red or the feeling of pain.

My own hypothesis on qualia within Earth animal creatures with neural system brains, is that the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena, are a result of location dependent 3-dimensional and power levels of standing wave brain wave oscillating electromagnetic fields.

Some neuroscientist and philosophers have always expected that mystery would never be solved. But I expect there will be a day when science shows textures in the subtle features of those fields that our current instrumentation is not yet incapable and sensitive enough of showing. And recently, there has been a breakthrough:

You lost me after the first paragraph. All I know is that without that which we call consciousness I wouldn't be me.
 
With sensory input we don't experience our nervous system as you'd think we would. We skip over all that data and experience the taste of an apple or whatever the input is directly.
But that's not consciousness. All life reacts to sensory input/environment. I think the importance of consciousness is overblown maybe. Just another inflated idea of our own superiority. We're just a smart, curious animal among the top of the food chain, fast getting too smart for our own good.
 
As much as is written about consciousness, the other parts of life experience that is often overlooked is the subconscious, and awareness. Consciousness often includes awareness, but awareness can exist on it's own (Like meditating and being aware of your breath, but not thinking about it). When you start thinking about it, you've entered consciousness. It has been said that simple awareness is the purest form of being because it doesn't add the other layers of contamination that can come from thought, biases, ego, beliefs, etc...

I remember reading a book quite some time back called "Strangers To Ourselves" by Wilson (Great book), and it deals with the subconscious. I remember a great example he gave of the conscious mind being like a flashlight in the attic. You can direct it almost anywhere, but it only illuminates one thing at a time. For instance, you can think about shopping, but you can't think about mowing the lawn at the same time, unless one of them is shuttled to the subconscious. It's like the backstage crew at a concert. They go unnoticed but do the heavy lifting to make it happen.

The subconscious is also where our emotions and biases, are stored, and it also composes our intuitions (Gut feelings) and it often decides what information reaches conscious awareness. Our subconscious is recognizing some pattern, but our conscious mind may not be sure of what it is. An example of the three working in tandem is: The subconscious is craving something (Although we may not know why). Then awareness is recognizing that we are hungry, and the conscious mind decides what to eat.

Despite how many thoughts march through our minds everyday, most of daily living is handled by the subconscious. Awareness is non-judgmental. It just notices. It's like the spotlight shining on the singer at the concert. It doesn't analyze or interpret. It doesn't really participate, but helps you to see what's there.

The conscious mind is always making errors (Many of which go unnoticed). That is the weak link. Correctly understanding what we are experiencing is the key.

 
At some point in these conversations about how the brain does what it does, someone is suppose to make the comment, "Neuroscience is making great strides in understanding the brain, and we are now close to knowing how it works," at which point, I think to myself, "Oh Really?!"
 
At some point in these conversations about how the brain does what it does, someone is suppose to make the comment, "Neuroscience is making great strides in understanding the brain, and we are now close to knowing how it works," at which point, I think to myself, "Oh Really?!"
Above reads like a typical news website, exaggerated click bait title.

should be:
Neuroscience is making great strides in beginning to understand how the brain works.
 


Back
Top