What is the Missing Logical Step Before Conscious Experience?

[ahmet]

3 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

You cannot know if for example  a Blind person is incorporating Visual Experiences in with their Hearing experiences. If they were, then they probably could not possibly know that they are experiencing Conscious Light phenomena  with their Auditory Experience. Just a thought, because we cannot know what their Experience is and they cannot properly tell us.

again crudely, , senses have modality and and the sensitivity is not same at ,all as you know or should know. defined by logarithm or via it. 

but of course ...yes , there is probability for some types of senses (also there might be different sense systems which WERE NOT DEFINED YET)

because for instance there might be intersense or different senses.

...

but intersense is surely possible. (even though it is not cogent for all) as one can experience if you apply pressure through your eyes, you will perceive a light although that organ is not being transdyced normally via pressure.

 

I know ear (auditory) system works differently. 

but to me ,I consider the possibility for the case if any living thing can see, that would not be able to perceive. I think this is possible.

17 minutes ago, SteveKlinko said:

Conscious Experiences are not explainable in language. They must be Experienced.

if you mean "experience" is totally apart from "descriptons" or 

there exist some "experience" types that were not explainable, then

I definitely disagree to this idea. We only do not know them,but that does not mean that they were not explainable.

[joigus]

Your concepts, "the screen", "redness", "being there", etc. are just verbal tags for occurrences you assume to exist but for which you have no handle. As you said yourself, you have no theory, which means, among other things, you have no way to infer from your words whether I, or other people, or a stone, or a plant, are conscious. You just repeat like a mantra, "I can see", "I understand", "I fully know and understand".

There are many good points here, but I will insist on @Bufofrog's: Do rocks, or running water, or thunderstorms have conscience? If they do, how do you know? And on what grounds? If they don't, why is it, if not because they have nothing in the way of physical connections to their environs that are processed by specialised elements like neurons?

You've got nothing. I've read nothing in what you say other than some kind of unsophisticated bluffing manoeuvre.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

Where does the Redness come from? How do Neurons make this Redness happen. It's a simple and direct question

Once more, just because you’re not capable of comprehending the answer doesn’t mean nobody is. 

From an article published just today, for example:

https://neurosciencenews.com/visual-event-processing-17459/
 

Quote

Researchers at the National Eye Institute (NEI) report that a brain region in the superior temporal sulcus (fSTS) is crucial for processing and making decisions about visual information. 
<...>
While aspects of visual processing begin in the eye, crucial steps in visual attention start in the superior colliculus, a part of the midbrain that handles a variety of sensory input. Previous work in Krauzlis’ lab showed that neuronal activity in the superior colliculus is necessary for the brain to notice an event in the visual field and decide that it is significant.

<...>
not only is a large proportion of fSTS neuronal activity dependent on the superior colliculus, these neurons use information from the superior colliculus to represent complex visual information.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

SK was warned not to open a new thread based on his conjecture, and as he will not be around to tapdance anymore, this is closed