Is nothing only perceived as blackness, or is it actually blackness?

[DBT]

Let's say there is nothing for my photoreceptors to receive for 10 seconds, then what am I seeing for those 10 seconds, nothing?

A blank period for 10 second at which point your stream of consciousness resumes. You don't know that you had lapse until you look at your watch and realize that time has passed without you realizing it, or experiencing it consciously. Of course, there is no unconscious experience. All experience being conscious.

 

[ryan]

Let's say there is nothing for my photoreceptors to receive for 10 seconds, then what am I seeing for those 10 seconds, nothing?

A blank period for 10 second at which point your stream of consciousness resumes. You don't know that you had lapse until you look at your watch and realize that time has passed without you realizing it, or experiencing it consciously. Of course, there is no unconscious experience. All experience being conscious.

Assume that everything else is working normally and at the conscious level. So there is 10 seconds of no stimulus only for any part of the visual system leading all the way to the exact point that the sensation is experienced.

 

[DBT]

A blank period for 10 second at which point your stream of consciousness resumes. You don't know that you had lapse until you look at your watch and realize that time has passed without you realizing it, or experiencing it consciously. Of course, there is no unconscious experience. All experience being conscious.

Assume that everything else is working normally and at the conscious level. So there is 10 seconds of no stimulus only for any part of the visual system leading all the way to the exact point that the sensation is experienced.

There would be no sensation beyond what is working normally. You would experience sounds, feelings, odours, thoughts, etc, but not visual imagery/sight. Of course your brain may fill the gap with mental imagery which may also happen during sensory deprivation.

 

[ryan]

Assume that everything else is working normally and at the conscious level. So there is 10 seconds of no stimulus only for any part of the visual system leading all the way to the exact point that the sensation is experienced.

There would be no sensation beyond what is working normally. You would experience sounds, feelings, odours, thoughts, etc, but not visual imagery/sight. Of course your brain may fill the gap with mental imagery which may also happen during sensory deprivation.

So we know that we don't actually experience the smell of an aroma or the photons that appear green. Instead, we experience neurons firing, presumably. If there are no neurons firing, assume we don't visually experience anything. We only sense blackness.

Back to my original question put differently, is blackness a rare example where our experience is the same as what is there, in this case nothing?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Back to my original question put differently, is blackness a rare example where our experience is the same as what is there, in this case nothing?

Exactly how would you go about determining the difference?
How to measure the blackness of nothing as opposed to the subjective experience of nothing?
does the objective appearance of 'nothing' mean anything?

 

[ryan]

Back to my original question put differently, is blackness a rare example where our experience is the same as what is there, in this case nothing?

Exactly how would you go about determining the difference?
How to measure the blackness of nothing as opposed to the subjective experience of nothing?
does the objective appearance of 'nothing' mean anything?

Think about it this way. We don't get to experience these things that are outside of the brain. For example, we probably have never actually experienced the light responsible for causing us to see the color green. But, it is interesting to me that there might be something or nothing that we can actually experience in its true form and not an end of a neurological process.

However, the more I think about it the more it seems as though the absence of a signal does not necessarily mean that our neurons are not sensing something like spacetime, itself or the EM field, etc.

 

[Juma]

However, the more I think about it the more it seems as though the absence of a signal does not necessarily mean that our neurons are not sensing something like spacetime, itself or the EM field, etc.

Wtf? If we are exposed to " pure nothing" that would probsbly mean all sorts of weird phenomena on the border between space time snd "pure nothing". But if we dosregard that: will light (photons) pass through "pure nothing" (assuming that the "pure nothing" actually has some size)

 

[ryan]

However, the more I think about it the more it seems as though the absence of a signal does not necessarily mean that our neurons are not sensing something like spacetime, itself or the EM field, etc.

Wtf? If we are exposed to " pure nothing" that would probsbly mean all sorts of weird phenomena on the border between space time snd "pure nothing". But if we dosregard that: will light (photons) pass through "pure nothing" (assuming that the "pure nothing" actually has some size)

If the ultimate receptor responsible for the sensation of a color can only detect an action potential or neurotransmission, and thus is the only thing that causes a sensation, then we are not detecting anything. We detect nothing.

Even thought spacetime is there, it may be irrelevant.

 

[DBT]

There would be no sensation beyond what is working normally. You would experience sounds, feelings, odours, thoughts, etc, but not visual imagery/sight. Of course your brain may fill the gap with mental imagery which may also happen during sensory deprivation.

So we know that we don't actually experience the smell of an aroma or the photons that appear green. Instead, we experience neurons firing, presumably. If there are no neurons firing, assume we don't visually experience anything. We only sense blackness.

Back to my original question put differently, is blackness a rare example where our experience is the same as what is there, in this case nothing?

That's the wrong way of putting it. It's not that we '' experience neurons firing, presumably. If there are no neurons firing, assume we don't visually experience anything'' but that neuronal activity shapes and forms the experience of sight, sound, feeling, thought and self awareness, etc, and if that activity is absent, so is the experience. Which for you becomes nothingness. Which is not experienced or perceived.

 

[Juma]

Wtf? If we are exposed to " pure nothing" that would probsbly mean all sorts of weird phenomena on the border between space time snd "pure nothing". But if we dosregard that: will light (photons) pass through "pure nothing" (assuming that the "pure nothing" actually has some size)

If the ultimate receptor responsible for the sensation of a color can only detect an action potential or neurotransmission, and thus is the only thing that causes a sensation, then we are not detecting anything. We detect nothing.

Even thought spacetime is there, it may be irrelevant.

This post doesnt make any sense at all.

First you must explain the situation at hand. Describe the scene. Where is the "pure nothing" and where is the human.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There would be no sensation beyond what is working normally. You would experience sounds, feelings, odours, thoughts, etc, but not visual imagery/sight. Of course your brain may fill the gap with mental imagery which may also happen during sensory deprivation.

So we know that we don't actually experience the smell of an aroma or the photons that appear green. Instead, we experience neurons firing, presumably. If there are no neurons firing, assume we don't visually experience anything. We only sense blackness.

Back to my original question put differently, is blackness a rare example where our experience is the same as what is there, in this case nothing?

Seeing something is merely an instance of experiencing the state of some visual area inside your brain that is supposedly affected in some determinate way by the state of your environment in front of your eyes. You never get to experience anything that would be in this environment, only that which is inside your brain, which must be something like the state of your neurons or some such. If by some extraordinary turn of events there was only nothingness in front of your eyes you would still be only experiencing some state of the visual area inside your brain (assuming this setup doesn't actually kill you off). Broadly the experience would be very similar to the one you have when in a sufficiently dark room, i.e. when the amount of light is so low your retina doesn't register anything. So, clearly, even if it was ever possible to look at nothingness, all you'd be experiencing would be the mundane experience of extreme darkness and darkness as absolutely nothing to do with nothingness. Darkness is something. It's just as much of a colour as any green or yellow you may want to think of. And if darkness is something then it really has nothing to do with nothingness. There is no looking like nothingness. Darkness is all you will ever get to experience. And, as I already said, it's not even really black. You have always some low-level, endogenous background activity, that sort of spoils the quality of the black you get to experience. Often, one part of your brain will try to conjure of coherent picture based on this low-level activity, so that for a few seconds you will actually think you are looking at something, say, some kind of Hindu temple, a forest, a person, anything, and that won't be something you would have willed to appear. It's spontaneous and normally ephemeral. It also more interesting than looking at nothingness.
EB

 

[ryan]

So we know that we don't actually experience the smell of an aroma or the photons that appear green. Instead, we experience neurons firing, presumably. If there are no neurons firing, assume we don't visually experience anything. We only sense blackness.

Back to my original question put differently, is blackness a rare example where our experience is the same as what is there, in this case nothing?

and if that activity is absent, so is the experience.

So doesn't that mean we do not experience anything; therefor, we experience nothing?

 

[ryan]

If the ultimate receptor responsible for the sensation of a color can only detect an action potential or neurotransmission, and thus is the only thing that causes a sensation, then we are not detecting anything. We detect nothing.

Even thought spacetime is there, it may be irrelevant.

This post doesnt make any sense at all.

First you must explain the situation at hand. Describe the scene. Where is the "pure nothing" and where is the human.

It's not really about pure nothing. It more about something that does not happen. Imagine sensation as a dimension all on its own. The only time something will appear in that dimension is when there is a sensation. With that in mind, read the following.

To sum it up simply, from what I understand about neurology is that the neuron either fires or it doesn't. Neurotransmitters are sent through the synaptic cleft (a gap between neurons) and the transmitters either cause an action potential (enough current to send a signal through the neuron) or they don't, all or nothing.

With nothing in the space of sensation, there is just a space of existence with nothing in it.

 

[ryan]

Often, one part of your brain will try to conjure of coherent picture based on this low-level activity, so that for a few seconds you will actually think you are looking at something, say, some kind of Hindu temple, a forest, a person, anything, and that won't be something you would have willed to appear. It's spontaneous and normally ephemeral. It also more interesting than looking at nothingness.
EB

So what happens if your brain doesn't conjure up anything for your imagination, but you can still think about what isn't there?

 

[DBT]

and if that activity is absent, so is the experience.

So doesn't that mean we do not experience anything; therefor, we experience nothing?

Not if there is neuronal activity. Not if there are sensory inputs stimulating response in the form of experience. That is not nothing, that is something. Something rather than nothing.

 

[DBT]

So what happens if your brain doesn't conjure up anything for your imagination, but you can still think about what isn't there?

How can you think about what isn't there? Or think about what you did not experience if 'nothing' does not relate to anything you have experienced in the past?

 

[Kharakov]

How will you tell the difference between not experiencing nothing and experiencing nothing?

 

[ryan]

So doesn't that mean we do not experience anything; therefor, we experience nothing?

Not if there is neuronal activity. Not if there are sensory inputs stimulating response in the form of experience. That is not nothing, that is something. Something rather than nothing.

But this doesn't make sense given the last couple of exchanges. You mentioned, "... and if that activity is absent, so is the experience", and then read what I replied with.

 

[ryan]

So what happens if your brain doesn't conjure up anything for your imagination, but you can still think about what isn't there?

How can you think about what isn't there? Or think about what you did not experience if 'nothing' does not relate to anything you have experienced in the past?

That's why I brought it up. Let's assume that scientists made it happen.

- - - Updated - - -

How will you tell the difference between not experiencing nothing and experiencing nothing?

Welcome to the party. Who is this post for?

 

[DBT]

Not if there is neuronal activity. Not if there are sensory inputs stimulating response in the form of experience. That is not nothing, that is something. Something rather than nothing.

But this doesn't make sense given the last couple of exchanges. You mentioned, "... and if that activity is absent, so is the experience", and then read what I replied with.

It's your phrase ''therefore, we experience nothing'' that I responded to, an oxymoron because we can't experience ''nothing'' - which as I explained earlier, is not an experience - nor by self definition, is open to experience.