Is it possible to doubt you are experiencing?

[untermensche]

No information is gained.

Nonsense. Red, for example, is associated with a stop light.

The brain could just as easily respond to the initial stimulation which is what it turned into red.

It is a unique stimulus, a unique experience.

It is not the same stimulus as the stimulus for green, not the same experience.

If the brain is reacting differently to the experience of red as opposed to green it could just as easily respond differently to the unique experiences that were transformed into red and green.

You're positing a superfluous experience when the brain already experienced something.

You give no reason for the creation or existence of red.

The only reason is for a mind to experience which isn't experiencing the initial stimulation.

 

[Elixir]

Absolute nonsense.

Light energy is not color.

If a brain reflexively produces a color based on the information from light energy then that is a transformation of one thing into something completely different.

If the brain is the experiencer you have not given any reason for this transformation to occur.

- - - Updated - - -

One word for you:
synesthesia

Yes, it is a thing. When you say "there would be no reason for a brain to transform the light it already experienced into something else to experience" you are imputing motives to a organ rather than to an organism. There may be "no reason for the brain" to do something, but that doesn't keep it from happening.

It is totally wasted energy to do it in the first place.

A brain that experiences would never have a need to transform something it just experienced into something totally different to experience.

It happens. Get over it.

Shows a lack of knowledge of biology.

Oh, really? Projection ... MUCH?
Read and learn:

Synesthesia is a neurological condition in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway (e.g., hearing) leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway (e.g., vision). Simply put, when one sense is activated, another unrelated sense is activated at the same time. This may, for instance, take the form of hearing music and simultaneously sensing the sound as swirls or patterns of color. Since synesthesia can involve any combination of the senses, there may be as many as 60 to 80 subtypes, but not all have been documented or studied, and the cause is unclear. The most commonly seen type is grapheme-color synesthesia, in which individual letters and numbers are associated with specific colors and sometimes colorful patterns. Some synesthetes perceive texture in response to sight, hear sounds in response to smells, or associate shapes with flavors. Many synesthetes have more than one type of synesthesia. It is estimated that approximately 3 to 5 percent of the population has some form of synesthesia, and the condition can run in families.

Your childish insistence that things should be the way YOU perceive them is based on profound ignorance and a misplaced sense of superiority.
It is real, it happens.
Get over it, dude - you're making a fool of yourself.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No information is gained.

Nonsense. Red, for example, is associated with a stop light.

The brain could just as easily respond to the initial stimulation which is what it turned into red.

It didn't turn it anything. It labels wavelength of 650nm "red." Naming something in order to either categorize it or communicate it is not turning it into something else.

It is not the same stimulus as the stimulus for green

That's right. "Green" is the word for a different wavelength.

If the brain is reacting differently to the experience of red the wavelength of 650nm as opposed to greenthe wavelength of 500nm it could just as easily respond differently to the unique experiences that were transformed into red and green.

NOW you got it.

You're positing a superfluous experience when the brain already experienced something.

False. Very clearly and undeniably false.

First, there is nothing superfluous about any of the processing, until and unless the processing selects out that which is superfluous. It can't do that until and unless all information related to the stimulus--both new and old--is first presented to it for processing.

Second, the "brain" has not yet experienced anything. The eyes are the first to "experience" something and they in turn send the information of that "experience" (i.e., stimulus) to the higher cognitive organs collectively referred to as our "brain." By the time the highest order cognitive processor (once assumed to be the neocortex, but now I believe there are differing theories, but this will suffice for example purposes)--once the neocortex--receives this particular package to act upon it (or not), it contains additional information added onto it (and/or detracted from it) by the different organs and then once the neocortex processes that package, it too passes it along to be stored in memory.

Iow, by the time the initial stimulus goes from the eyes to the neocortex--and thus to the level of action potential--a lot of information has been added to it (or detracted from it).

Don't you have access to the fucking internet to do any of this basic research yourself?

You give no reason for the creation or existence of red.

I have, repeatedly. The letters "R" "E" and "D" placed into that random order are how English speaking humans denote the wavelength 600nm. It is nothing more than a label for the purposes of categorization.

The only reason is for a mind

You have not yet proved any such thing as a "mind" exists. Until and unless you do, you are required to use the word "brain." Full stop.

 

[untermensche]

...the "brain" has not yet experienced anything...

It certainly has.

It has experienced the information from the optic nerves.

Now you claim it must experience color too. Something created from this experience.

Even though there is no added information. There is only a transformation.

Ridiculous.

The letters "R" "E" and "D" placed into that random order are how English speaking humans denote the wavelength 600nm.

The word red is not the color red.

The color red is something expereienced.

It is not a wavelength of light.

A brain contingently could turn that wavelength into green.

It just happens to convert it to red.

The wavelength of light is not color.

It is a stimulus for the creation of an evolutionary contingent color.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Speak for yourself.

You don't get a lot.

The question is simple.

How could you possibly doubt that what you are experiencing is what you are experiencing?

If you think that is too complex a question that is too bad.

You seem to lack the most basic empathy that would tell you the way you express your views isn't good enough.

No. I have a lot of empathy for people with cognitive dissonance due to a lack of the ability to think. But that is meaningless.

When you have an experience where it appears you are giving a command, you know the experience itself

You know beyond doubt it is what you are experiencing.

You know beyond doubt the experience of the arm will not move as desired without giving the command.

The command is there before the experience of the arm moves as desired, every time.

but you don't know whether you are indeed giving a command

If the experience of the arm does not move without giving the command you only have experiential evidence that it is the command.

You have no way to doubt it is the command.

It may well be your brain doing it

There is no evidence of that.

And it conflicts with experience. The experience is of doing something not of having something done.

Your brain is doing everything you are experiencing

The brain is somehow creating all the mind experiences and it also creates the autonomous active contemplative mind.

The brain is reflexive and unless damaged it will reflexively move the arm every time the mind commands.

These attributions of every feature of the mind to the brain is just intellectual laziness and absurdity.

.

There's nothing else I could do for you.

It really sucks to have been breast-feeding you for so long and witness in amazement how you're still the same baby as ever. Time to abort.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You have not given me anything.

No rational criticism.

Nothing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

...the "brain" has not yet experienced anything...

It certainly has.

It certainly has not.

It has experienced the information from the optic nerves.

Wrong. The optic nerves have "experienced" that information. The higher cognitive organs have not yet. The information travels along various routes, where it is either added to or subtracted from long before it gets anywhere near the neocortex (which I am here using as the final action potential organ).

Now you claim it must experience color too.

Serious, ARE YOU ON CRACK? This isn't complicated. "Red" is the name of wavelength 650nm. Whenever wavelength 650nm triggers the optic nerve, that information is sent along to the various higher cognitive processing organs found primarily in the skull. That information--wavelength 650nm--in turn triggers some part of the brain that categorizes such information. Whatever part that is, then puts its "stamp" on the information package. That "stamp" is "We call this wavelength 'Red'." That bit of information in turn triggers other associations--other stored information packets--with a similar "stamp" of "Red" on them, or the like.

Have you never been in a library? Same fucking principle.

It would might help if you stopped equivocating and using "experience" when you mean "qualia" or the like to differentiate between packages of information and how the brain processes it.

Something created from this experience.

Nothing is "created" from "this experience" unless you mean added to or subtracted from an initial bit of information.

Ridiculous.

You most certainly are because you obviously know all of this and are now just trolling, because no one could be so pathetically stupid as to not comprehend any of this.

The letters "R" "E" and "D" placed into that random order are how English speaking humans denote the wavelength 600nm.

The word red is not the color red.

And now the term "qualia" would help you, but of course, you aren't interested in actually making a coherent argument clearly.

The color red is something expereienced.

No shit? You mean it's an information package?

It is not a wavelength of light.

FFS. This is just more of your asinine posturing. You clearly comprehend everything I've already posted and know full well it utterly decimates your sophistry.

You need to find a hobby. And I need to stop feeding you, so we're done.

Have a fuck you experience.

 

[untermensche]

It certainly has not.

It has experienced the information from the optic nerves.

Wrong. The optic nerves have "experienced" that information.

The optic nerve has transmitted the experience. Given the brain something to experience.

There is no need for some second experience. If the brain is an experiencer.

You are positing a second superfluous experience when the brain already has a unique experience.

Absurdity, not reason.

Red" is the name of wavelength 650nm

No it is not.

It is the name given to an experience.

Light is not experienced.

It cannot be experienced.

Light is lost when the stimulation is transformed into a neural signal that travels to the brain.

 

[untermensche]

Synesthesia is a neurological condition in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway (e.g., hearing) leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway (e.g., vision). Simply put, when one sense is activated, another unrelated sense is activated at the same time. This may, for instance, take the form of hearing music and simultaneously sensing the sound as swirls or patterns of color. Since synesthesia can involve any combination of the senses, there may be as many as 60 to 80 subtypes, but not all have been documented or studied, and the cause is unclear. The most commonly seen type is grapheme-color synesthesia, in which individual letters and numbers are associated with specific colors and sometimes colorful patterns. Some synesthetes perceive texture in response to sight, hear sounds in response to smells, or associate shapes with flavors. Many synesthetes have more than one type of synesthesia. It is estimated that approximately 3 to 5 percent of the population has some form of synesthesia, and the condition can run in families.

Your childish insistence that things should be the way YOU perceive them is based on profound ignorance and a misplaced sense of superiority.
It is real, it happens.
Get over it, dude - you're making a fool of yourself.

This does not address anything I have said.

As I said, synesthesias are evidence the brain products experienced by the mind, colors, sounds, sensations are arbitrary evolutionary contingencies.

And even if you have a synesthesia you know what you are experiencing.

That is how we know about them.

The only thing we know about them are the subjective reports.

We have no idea how any experience is created.

 

[DBT]

That's not my question. Go start your own thread on that totally different topic since you don't seem to be able to understand this one

It is exactly about that. The OP question clearly relates the nature of experience, hence my question;

If you are not experiencing something, be it thoughts, feelings, sensory phenomena, etc, what is the nature of your experience?

Can you explain?

 

[untermensche]

That's not my question. Go start your own thread on that totally different topic since you don't seem to be able to understand this one

It is exactly about that. The OP question clearly relates the nature of experience, hence my question;

The OP question is specific. It is not whatever you want it to be.

Only a complete moron can't understand that.

You somehow think it isn't important to actually try to understand a question first before you spew your stupidity.

 

[DBT]

That's not my question. Go start your own thread on that totally different topic since you don't seem to be able to understand this one

It is exactly about that. The OP question clearly relates the nature of experience, hence my question;

The OP question is specific. It is not whatever you want it to be.

Only a complete moron can't understand that.

You somehow think it isn't important to actually try to understand a question first before you spew your stupidity.

The OP question relates to the nature experience. My question relates to the nature of experience.....so can you address the question or not?

 

[untermensche]

The OP question is specific. It is not whatever you want it to be.

Only a complete moron can't understand that.

You somehow think it isn't important to actually try to understand a question first before you spew your stupidity.

The OP question relates to the nature experience. My question relates to the nature of experience.....so can you address the question or not?

The OP question is about the nature of reasonable doubt.

 

[DBT]

The OP question is specific. It is not whatever you want it to be.

Only a complete moron can't understand that.

You somehow think it isn't important to actually try to understand a question first before you spew your stupidity.

The OP question relates to the nature experience. My question relates to the nature of experience.....so can you address the question or not?

The OP question is about the nature of reasonable doubt.

Which is related to the nature of experience. Can you answer the question or not?

 

[untermensche]

The OP question is about the nature of reasonable doubt.

Which is related to the nature of experience. Can you answer the question or not?

It is related to the experience of thinking.

It is a simple question.

If you are experiencing a certain thing, any kind of experience at all, is it possible to doubt you are experiencing that thing?

The question is not about the nature of experience.

It is totally about the fact of experiencing things.

And experience is only and always something experiencing something else that is not itself.

The pain is not me. It is something "I" experience.

My sight is not me it is something "I" experience.

There is "I" and there is all "I" can experience.

 

[DBT]

What exactly is the nature of this 'I' you speak of? This proposed thinker of thoughts and feeler of fealings? That is what you need to explain, not just state.

 

[untermensche]

What exactly is the nature of this 'I' you speak of? This proposed thinker of thoughts and feeler of fealings? That is what you need to explain, not just state.

You tell me.

You are an "I" as well, nothing else.

There is no feeling of being a brain. No such thing exists. There is the feeling of being an "I" with the prejudices and conclusions of an "I". And the feeling of being in command with a lot of evidence you are in command.

You conclude at work you will watch a football game when you get home. And you do. You freely do what you decided ahead of time to do. You do it all the time.

But sometimes you find out when you get home a different game is on and that game has more appeal so you do not do what you planned to do at work and you watch that game instead.

The ability to do or not do what you plan ahead of time.

This is autonomy of mind.

How is it not?

Because you don't have a clue how any of it is happening in terms of brain physiology?

 

[DBT]

What exactly is the nature of this 'I' you speak of? This proposed thinker of thoughts and feeler of fealings? That is what you need to explain, not just state.

You tell me.

You are an "I" as well, nothing else.

There is no feeling of being a brain. No such thing exists. There is the feeling of being an "I" with the prejudices and conclusions of an "I". And the feeling of being in command with a lot of evidence you are in command.

You conclude at work you will watch a football game when you get home. And you do. You freely do what you decided ahead of time to do. You do it all the time.

But sometimes you find out when you get home a different game is on and that game has more appeal so you do not do what you planned to do at work and you watch that game instead.

The ability to do or not do what you plan ahead of time.

This is autonomy of mind.

How is it not?

Because you don't have a clue how any of it is happening in terms of brain physiology?

That's not an explanation of self, mind or the nature of experience, sorry but you are just listing your conclusions as if they are undeniable truths.

 

[untermensche]

What exactly is the nature of this 'I' you speak of? This proposed thinker of thoughts and feeler of fealings? That is what you need to explain, not just state.

You tell me.

You are an "I" as well, nothing else.

There is no feeling of being a brain. No such thing exists. There is the feeling of being an "I" with the prejudices and conclusions of an "I". And the feeling of being in command with a lot of evidence you are in command.

You conclude at work you will watch a football game when you get home. And you do. You freely do what you decided ahead of time to do. You do it all the time.

But sometimes you find out when you get home a different game is on and that game has more appeal so you do not do what you planned to do at work and you watch that game instead.

The ability to do or not do what you plan ahead of time.

This is autonomy of mind.

How is it not?

Because you don't have a clue how any of it is happening in terms of brain physiology?

That's not an explanation of self, mind or the nature of experience, sorry but you are just listing your conclusions as if they are undeniable truths.

You ignore all philosophical examinations of the idea of autonomy.

Yet you have no physiological understanding of the mind and of what the mind can do.

So you completely ignore an area where some understanding is possible.

One has to wonder why.

My guess is you are unable to think on your own.

You are a parrot, not a thinking human.

You conclude at work you will watch a football game when you get home. And you do. You freely do what you decided ahead of time to do. You do it all the time.

But sometimes you find out when you get home a different game is on and that game has more appeal so you do not do what you planned to do at work and you watch that game instead.

The ability to do or not do what you plan ahead of time.

This is autonomy of mind.

How is it not?

 

[DBT]

That's not an explanation of self, mind or the nature of experience, sorry but you are just listing your conclusions as if they are undeniable truths.

You ignore all philosophical examinations of the idea of autonomy.

You don't appear to understand what I say.....however, please provide an example of your 'philosophical examinations of the idea of autonomy' so that I can see what you are referring to.

Yet you have no physiological understanding of the mind and of what the mind can do.

Which implies that you do. So, lets see what the source of your understanding of the mind may be....please provide that information, evidence, papers, articles, etc.