Does Consciousness Disprove Materialism?

[@oskarnellemann5095]

Alex: "Where the hell is the triangle?!" - Plato has entered the chat...

[@abelkjohn]

Ysss, that's what came to my mind😂

[@ZacCopium]

This is a chad plato mogging clip just begging to be made

[@zecomrade82]

​@@ZacCopium 🤫🧏

[@jamesh1758]

Pythagoras sneaking out the back door with a bag full of triangles.

[@stephenzaccardelli5863]

Implying subconsciously cones are on the head without sense of touch conscientiously Freud said its nowhere

[@pierrot-baptistelemee-joli820]

Unplug the computer screen and you have the same situation. You know there is the concept of a triangle in the computer since you just saw it on the screen. But without the screen, where does that triangle go? Well with the computer, we know it’s there as a complex sequence of binaries that are probably stored as physical little switches that are either or somewhere in the computer’s physical hardware. Why would it be so hard to imagine the same thing happens with the human brain? The triangle is nearly certainly somewhere inside the brain, physically encoded through complex electrical impulses that we are not yet able to decode. But had we that knowledge of precisely how the brain encoded information, we could probably display that information on some kind of screen, like we do with computers. I don’t find that hard to imagine at all.

[@Blanksmithy123]

I would argue the triangle does not exist when you turn off the monitor. The info going through the hdmi cable is not a triangle until it’s displayed. The problem is the triangle in my head is not displayed either, yet it clearly exists.

[@ppnico12]

@@Blanksmithy123 The HDMI is only a conduct of information between the computer and the screen. The screen receive data to display a triangle from the HDMI which is sent from the computer. Its a bridge from point A to point B. However the data still exist if you unplug it in point A the computer itself. I would argue that the triangle in your head is very much displayed, that why you see it. All the other nerve impulse, like beating your heart, breathing, standing up right, etc you don't feel. Because they don't have a bridge between the computer that is your brain and the display that is your consciousness. Those bits of information still ''exist'' but you don't feel them, so they don't feel like ''you''. The triangle however is directly being displayed to ''you'', so it feels like it ''exist'' from your perspective.

[@DiogenesNephew]

The analogy doesn't work because, in the one case, there is a physical screen and a physical computer. In the other, there is immaterial subjective experience and a physical brain. It must be said that even in the second case, the brain itself is still an object of subjectivity and can't strictly be said to be made of this stuff we call "matter."

[@illdie314]

​@@DiogenesNephewidk what you're on about but the brain is definitely made of matter. And your comparison still doesn't recognize the fact that even if the triangle exists on the screen it must first exist in an intermediary state as a collection of signals in the computer. You haven't demonstrated any reason to assume that there's anything immaterial involved.

[@Blanksmithy123]

@@ppnico12 I'm not sure if we agree... A literal triangle is a shape that needs to be constructed of real lines. The "information", or the "ones and zeros" that represent the triangle can exist in the PC, but the triangle doesn't actually exist until it's displayed on something. because that is where the shape is formed, on a screen. Now the big question is, what is the mental triangle being displayed on too? It does feel like it IS being displayed, but on what? It seems like the answer is something metaphysical, which is incompatible with materialism.

[@aksu1248]

The hard problem of consciousness and surrounding issues are being taken seriously by serious philosophers, yet the comment section seems to think there is no issue here.

[@Raphael4722]

Yes... Are people afraid that this kind of thinking will give credence to religion or something? IMO there are plenty of arguments against the Abrahamic religions, giving the hard problem the respect it deserves may only lead to more interesting, modern forms of spirituality.

[@ЯсенЧапкънов]

As a self proclaimed expert my view is that conciousness is the product of ignorance and the illusion of knowledge because subjectivity is just a false narrative. If you believe you understand how something works as a material object you tend to think of it as your X rather than X being you. My arm hurts, because my neurons are stimulated and send signals to my brain that are interpreted in region X etc. I hurt because the above mentioned levels of materialistic explanation aren't sufficient. If they ever become such there will be no I left.

[@MultiSpeedMetal]

None of these science and atheist people are very educated on philosophy, and the people who watch them aren’t at all. They have no idea that there is a realm beyond Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham. It’s these same people who call Jordan Peterson incoherent because they have no idea who Carl Jung or any of the other people he gets most of his ideas from are, even though he literally can’t go a conversation without mentioning them by name. Any time anyone with some basic philosophy knowledge talks, they just get told they are being incoherent and trying to sound smart or whatever. It’s frustrating. There’s no attempt to understand an argument because everyone is more interested in blood sports vanity debating, and scoring points for their dumb team.

[@freddyguy8582]

I take your point but if you understand Jung, Peterson still doesn't make any sense on atheism, because Jung doesn't. Yes! Plus one for my team 🎉

[@TheYahmez]

@@freddyguy8582 "If you understand Jung [..] he doesn't [make sense]" 🤔 certainly A perspective.

[@azducatiramirez5470]

hey, at least we have hundreds of experts in the comment section to explain it

[@zaidnava7200]

who dont judge so easily

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

Thousands**

[@Dhruvbala]

Real

[@thebois32]

Isn’t that the point of debate and uploading this video. So people can share their own viewpoints and beliefs, especially for something that is kind of subjective like this

[@WhoThisMonkey]

​@@thebois32 No! It's to complain about people attempting to!

[@JezHeck]

I'm part of your comments section and my opinions are garbage.

[@highvalence7649]

Dont sell yourself Short

[@uninspired3583]

@@highvalence7649 there might be less violence in the world if more people did sell themselves short...

[@GoogleIsTooInvasive]

Yeah… but isn’t that kind of insider trading?

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

Facts

[@Tobias8842]

@@GoogleIsTooInvasive Not if I do it outside

[@seangrif11]

Dude, include a link to the full video when you do these clips.

[@tosch9057]

The 'triangle' (or rather the data that makes up the triangle) is still there even without a screen. That data is then just mapped onto something that we can perceive. So yes when you 'cut open' a computer, you will find what it is displaying on the screen. Assuming by 'cut open' you mean taking a look at what is happening 'under the hood'.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

You will NOT find a triangle inside a computer but you will find it on the screen; you will literally find atoms arranged in a triangle shape/light waves emitting triangularly. You will NEVER find that inside the brain - our mental perception can only be cut open by cutting open the brain, which, again, won’t reveal any triangular pattern.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

We’re looking for a TRIANGULAR pattern is some material medium - not non-triangular DATA that magically becomes the triangle we perceive. If you cannot located a MATERIAL triangular pattern that his mental triangle could be, then you have to basically admit that his triangle exists in some immaterial form - disproving materialism

[@maxrowe1671]

​@PhysicsWithoutMagic that doesn't disprove materialism at all. You picturing a triangle in your brain doesn't mean that the triangle MUST physically exist for it to originate in the brain. Like in a computer, the data for a triangle isn't triangular. That doesn't mean computers have souls/are immaterial. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. When parts of the brain die, parts of your consciousness like your memory, senses, your personality, are destroyed with it.

[@tosch9057]

​@@PhysicsWithoutMagicI'm not a neurologist so I don't know about mental triangles. However I do know a fair bit about computers and how they work, so I wanted to correct the idea that there is no triangle without a screen. That is absolutely not the case. Also what is 'triangular data' supposed to mean. What makes data 'triangular'. Obviously there is no plastic triangle in your computer, that's not how computers work, but you can absolutely find 'the triangle' in computer memory (which is material, and not magic).

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@tosch9057neurologists also can’t explain how carbon atoms start seeing red triangle and feeling stomach aches

[@tazp123]

Your brain is essentially a java runtime compiler. Riddle solved.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Not until you explain how carbon atoms can feel stomach aches

[@SecularMentat]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagicwhat is pain? If not our brain telling us that something is broken? The negation of this argument is why does pain stop when we take pain killers? Did the pain actually stop? Or is our brain just not getting that signal anymore?

[@cabellocorto5586]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagicThe carbon atoms don't feel the stomach ache, the system they run feels the stomach ache.

[@archtard]

Nah its Just gcc with extra steps

[@hippykiller2775]

You're an idiot. Like such an idiot that I don't think you are smart enough to even begin to comprehend how endlessly stupid you are... Like reading your comment just made me think of how much work it would take for you just to be smart enough to comprehend how wrong you are... And I realized that level of education is impossible on here(also I don't think you are worth the time) so the only form of communication possible between you and me on this topic is too point out how utterly dumb you are. Honestly it's like reading the comment of a 2nd grader. And seeing all the other 2nd grade people who agree with you is honestly depressing.

[@RulingRat]

1. Eat orange 2. Taste buds send electric signals to brain A. Remember eating orange B. Brain replicates electric signals of the original experience Repeating 1-2 improves the fidelity of A-B (adjusted by the settings of your hardware: Gustatory Aphantasia Gustatory Hyperphantasia)

[@xenoblad]

Usually, the response would be that that electrical signal that caused the experience is distinct from the experience itself. Even if we could predict what experience a person is having by observing those electrical signals, that observation would be distinct from the experience of the experience that signal caused. I'm not married to this position, but this is roughly how I imagine a dualist or idealist would respond.

[@chrispercival9789]

It isnt reducible to experience though, since we also Imagine things that have never happened, and Imagine things that dont exist which we then create. There is the possibility of the 2nd category things being memories that have travelled back through time.

[@xenoblad]

@chrispercival9789 generally, things that don't exist that are imagined or dreamed are chimera. So I've seen horns, and I've seen horses, so I can then mash things up into a unicorn, but it's not really a whole new and unique experience. This is why we can't imagine a color we haven't ever seen. Green colorblind people can't imagine the color green, no matter what.

[@TheHuxleyAgnostic]

​@@chrispercival9789 No. People don't really "imagine" things they've never experienced. Those who have never heard a thing don't imagine what things sound like, don't dream with sound. Those who have never seen a thing don't imagine images, don't dream in images.

[@chrispercival9789]

@@TheHuxleyAgnostic just wrong buddy. I have flying dreams all the time, had them since i was a child. If people dont imagine/dream things they've never experienced you can't account for any kind of fiction in literature or most progress in science. Its sad to say but it seems you don't have the imagination of the great man who's name you have assumed.

[@daniellamcgee4251]

'Is an image of a pineapple a real pineapple?' - Taskmaster.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

No (but the image does exist). Next question.

[@godassasin8097]

no but the image of a crying angel does become a crying angel tho

[@misterdoctor9693]

That is up to Greg to decide.

[@eeromarttinen5372]

​@@PhysicsWithoutMagicyou're the one arguing in other comments that the triangle needs to be something you can measure in order for it to exist as anything lmao. Just like the picture of a pineapple can exist without itself being a pineapple, so can the physical hardware of a computer holding data of a triangle exist without it itself being a literal triangle. You are very much arguing in bad faith, changing your goalposts to whatever you like depending on the situation

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@eeromarttinen5372 I concede that a computer can exist without being a triangle. I don’t concede that a non-triangular computer is a triangle. Try again…?

[@jaredmatthews1561]

I would take it another step further and not just focus on the existence of the triangle (which one could argue is reducible), but on the existence of the experience of seeing the triangle. The experience cannot be reducible

[@AB-eq9mm]

The answer to this question is that the triangle does not exist as a triangle. Even when displayed on the screen it is just a pattern of light and darkness. This argument requires that the triangle have some essence such that it really exists in your mind or in a computer, but it doesn’t.

[@dyrtyharry6789]

The better question he forgot to ask is: where does the light come from?

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

That's another way to look at it, that we're just interpreting as a triangle but there's nor real triangle there.

[@trapidtrap2612]

At the end of the day though the triangle does exist. Simple the fact you can see the triangle in your mind. In essence. Shows its existence. As you can not imagine something or something which doesn't in some concept exist.

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

@@trapidtrap2612 "in essence" and "in some concept" are doing world class heavy lifting here. A triangle is a geometric shape defined by its properties. It's not a single "thing" (unless you're thinking of the musical instrument, which would be funny). Let's make up a new word: flipplenugle. A flipplenugle is defined as a mass comprised of billions of unicorns participating in an orgy. The mass is so large that it is basically a small moon. Can you imagine that? If you can, would you say that it exists "in essence"? If you can't, I'd question your imagination. I went with a whimsical and somewhat inappropriate example because I think it's really easy to talk about metaphysics when dealing with positive or neutral ideas. A core principle, such as being able to imagine something demonstrates it's existence "in some context", should be applicable to every relevant scenario.

[@AB-eq9mm]

@@trapidtrap2612 i’d put it this way. The triangle is a highly abstract idea that can be expressed in ways that are not themselves triangles

[@QuintarFarenor]

Your neurons are like the memory the triangle is read from so it can be displayed on the monitor. When you close your eyes (and not have a-phantasia) you can 'read' your own memory banks, like a computer would.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Yes, but the computer’s display is material. Your display isn’t.

[@QuintarFarenor]

I'd say it is, my neurons are all material things, the grey matter that stores my memories also, the chemistry to link both together is also material. what do you propose it is? @@PhysicsWithoutMagic

[@yayayayya4731]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic it is material. when you "imagine" it still takes brain power, aka, neurons firing.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@yayayayya4731those neurons are not arranged in any sort of triangular pattern and the grow cannot BE the triangle he sees

[@yayayayya4731]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic no, the neurons are the triangle itself. The concept of a "triangle" (which you perceive as a picture" is basically stored in your brain or any computer as nuerons and bits respectively. You don't perceive a "triangle", instead you perceive those same neurons firing. That's what you have learnt to call a triangle.

[@KrelianLoke]

Consciousness isn't spatial, there is no "where" to talk about. Space and matter on the other hand, are spatial.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

So it’s not material then, right?

[@KrelianLoke]

@PhysicsWithoutMagic Neurons in the brain firing off in different permutations and patterns are material, this translates to the "triangle". The triangle itself is not material.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@KrelianLokeso the triangle, which exists, is non-material - right?

[@KrelianLoke]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic I would say the triangle, which perceived, does not exist. And it is not material.

[@gungungun9yago]

@@KrelianLokehow does it not exist if you're picturing it 😂😂😂

[@lyterman]

I was expecting Alex to give some cheap answer. I was pleasantly surprised. He just sat in the difficulty and accepted it as a downside of materialism. Respect.

[@lucasleepwalker7543]

Except he is wrong, when you 'see' a triangle you aren't seeing anything, your eyes collect information and send it to you brain, where you brain then guesses what it is and creates the image of the triangle, all vision is a creation of the mind, it isn't a true representation of reality

[@Kobriks1]

​@@lucasleepwalker7543 So what it's not an accurate representation of reality? Most of our experiences aren't, the question is why qualia exists at all if all we are is the firing of neurons inside of a brain.

[@lucasleepwalker7543]

@@Kobriks1 i argue it doesn't, its perceived existence is a mistake made by the brain

[@Kobriks1]

To say that qualia doesn't exist is the most self-evidently absurd statement conceivable to human thought. But you do you.

[@aarondavis8943]

This is an argument supporting the mysteriousness of the mind and consciousness, not _against_ materialism. We know that we evolved from non-conscious organisms. That means consciousness is an emergent property of evolution and almost certainly formed gradually from it's material substrate. It wasn't existent in the universe previously, and it didn't pop into existence through some unknown agent. Whether it's an illusion, illusory or is precisely what it _feels_ like it is, we know it is merely a product of the molecules of our brain. The fact that our brain resembles and functions very much like a computer is obviously not some crazy coincidence. It's physical composition serves the purpose of a computer, processing sensory input data, calculating risk, running simulations etc.

[@abdoolkareem_]

That computer analogy is the best way to negate this point

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Nope

[@Saimlordy]

But he negated his own analogy in the video

[@previnder]

Where is the display?

[@abdoolkareem_]

@@Saimlordy that was not a good negation of the computer analogy

[@iancanon8648]

@@previnderit's displayed subjectively, on monitor no one else can see (but if we could build a perfect brain monitor, which we theoretically should be able to do, someone could see). So the analogy breaks down with the computer example. We don't have the technology to display it like a computer, but we *should* eventually.

[@GrantStinnett]

I liked Penrose’s question concerning consciousness. He asks something like, “What is that thing recognizing truth? What is the thing that sees reality versus non-reality?”

[@חסד-ת1י]

I am a Christian based on how I see the universe. I LOVE how Alex thinks. He is genuine and curious. Really amazing!!

[@joe94c]

This forgets that some people literally do not have a minds eye due to their brain. Some people also do not have an internal monologue. So unless I'm not understanding the point, how can it be anything other than down to the hardware?

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

No, it doesn’t. His mental triangle still exists. And people without mental images - maybe there are a few - have other equivalent sensations, so we could just use some equivalent example

[@stargazer137]

That just blows my mind man. How do some people NOT have an internal monologue?

[@godassasin8097]

imagine people before language ​@@stargazer137

[@danw5760]

@@stargazer137 I thought about it and tried to think of instances where I'm completely immersed in something, perhaps like playing sport, where you're still thinking and fully cognizant but not verbalizing your thoughts. Maybe it's like that. But yes it is quite odd and unnerving

[@sravasaksitam]

@@danw5760yes it's just like that

[@VictorSamuelMosqueraArtamonov]

The mind is a manifestation of a physical state, the triangle is there as an arrangement of synapses being on and off.

[@SonnyWane]

that refutes materialism. and I happened to agree with your comment.

[@ddrgbbackup]

reductionist materialism is completely circular and philosophically indefensible

[@faust8218]

Where is "there"?

[@oldmenproductions5766]

Low iq response. Modern materialists really struggling with basic phenomenology.

[@VictorSamuelMosqueraArtamonov]

@@faust8218 the brain

[@Kid_Ikaris]

I love this guy more and more. The way he lays out logic, whether you end up agreeing with it or not, is so refreshing in this landscape of invective and thoughtless opinion.

[@cappyricks942]

This is like saying video games = credible refutation of materialism. If you cut into a GPU you're not going to find , you're going to find . Exact same thing. If you understand how the GPU represents a triangle to the monitor and can de-code that, and have the time to spend looking across the transistors to find where the triangle is being generated, you would physically be able to do so. I believe that this is what people mean when they say the triangle you're speaking of can be reduced to a place in the brain. It's not a triangle in your brain, it is the code for how a triangle is represented to your conscious awareness.

[@porteal8986]

no, because the experience itself is not found int he brain just like the shapes displayed on the screen are not in the computer.

[@AgentOttsel]

But how come when a human brain has a representation of a triangle, it can experience seeing that triangle, and when a GPU has a representation of a triangle, it doesn't have that experience? Or does it? 🤔

[@hiyoowihamainza949]

But consciousness is private, non-observable. You cannot see the triangle I am seeing. Conversely, if you gathered your friends around a video game screen, and asked them all what they see, they could say "Triangle." But that is because the graphical output is public and observable. Once you introduce the unobservabability of private imaginings, the analogy starts to break down. Where is the screen? We can't see it in the brain, as all we see are neuronal networks, not a triangle. We can't see it arrayed in our shared environment. Where is it?

[@oldmenproductions5766]

Low iq response. Modern materialists really struggling with basic phenomenology.

[@cappyricks942]

@@Dhruvbala As far as you know, neither do I and the same backwards. Same problem.

[@MrJacktheGC123]

This is one of Alex's worst takes. I have an awesome recipe for a chocolate cake in my head, but you're gonna have a hard time using a pool of my grey matter as a guide

[@uninspired3583]

Hard, but not impossible. Note we can create images from the thoughts of people's brain scans now...

[@MrJacktheGC123]

yeah, but that's essentially just a computer program that can detect neuronal firing patterns and convert it into an image. It doesn't discredit materialist ideology

[@uninspired3583]

@@MrJacktheGC123 right. The point is if the information forming the thought is encoded in the neural pattern, we don't need to appeal to superstition, the thought just is the neural pattern.

[@caveman-cp9tq]

There is clearly a difference between the chemical components that map to the conscious experience and the experience itself. You can see the brain light up but you can never actually see the object of consciousness. This is literally the hard problem of consciousness. It’s called the hard problem for a reason. Go publish your thoughts if you think you solved it.

[@uninspired3583]

@@caveman-cp9tq calling it an object is begging the question, many see it as a process not an object. What is it you think brain scans do that produce the image being imagined?

[@cjlogan2987]

So respectful. A room full of actual men right there

Well when there is a visible triangle outside of your body what youre actually seeing is the projection created in your consiousness. The light reflected off the triangle is received by your eyes and transmitted through nerves to the brain and you're perceiving this electrical impulse somehow. So like somebody already commented you can recreate the electrical impulses by means other than seeing an actual triangle to achieve the same result. It's just still a mystery how exactly this works. But there is no proof and need for a non-materialistic explanation

[@mrjimmbo]

This feels exactly like a god of the gaps argument that you should recognise immediately. We don’t “see” triangles, our brain interprets electric signals. There’s no reason those signals can’t be reproduced using memory.

[@andrewprahst2529]

There's a seemingly uncrossable gap between electrical signals correlated with a thought and actually experiencing that thought.

[@nuynobi]

​@@andrewprahst2529Huh? The electrical signal _is_ the thought, and you can't have a thought without experiencing it.

[@VoidplayLP]

​@@nuynobithe argument in the video is very much incomplete. The information required to construct your experience of reality is material, its just neurons firing. The experience itself is different from this as you don't experience this as neurons firing, you experience it as, for example, a triangle. The idea here is that the material and your experience are connected but something in the middle modifies it. I personally dont find this very convincing but its at least more of an argument

[@Noferrah]

⁠@@nuynobithat's a categorical error. a thought is exactly what it appears to be as you experience it. the electrical signal is merely *correlated* with it

[@nuynobi]

@@Noferrah No it's not. The thought/experience and the electrochemical activity in the brain are literally one and the same. Conceptually you can separate them, but that doesn't mean they are actually distinct entities. It's just 2 ways to talk about the same thing. It's not unlike how you can talk about a) the temperature of an object, or b) the kinetic energy of its molecules.

[@franciscoascensao7010]

The brutality of honesty from Alex is amazing

[@Goryus]

The brain does, in fact, have a screen. When you imagine or dream a shape, the same parts of the brain engage as when you see them. The part of the brain that interprets a pattern as being a triangle is analogous to the computer screen in this example.

[@huntercleland7432]

But what’s looking at the screen?

[@DiogenesMota]

The brain is conceptual, a part of the phenomena world. There is no such a thing as a non-phenomenal brain, independent of the mind, such that it could magically bring the mind about.

[@DiogenesNephew]

​@@DiogenesMotaAgreed.

[@inajosmood]

​@@huntercleland7432 the same phenomena that generates what the screen sees. There's no distinction between seen and seeër. They're both a part of- and a product of the whole body/mind system that we call human.

[@Roxor128]

​@@huntercleland7432 It's a feedback loop. The output from one instant is part of the input for the next. These loops exist in computers. You can't make one without them. The loop goes between memory and the logic circuits. Data from memory, to logic, and back into memory.

[@NEXTMARKDESIGN]

You need to interview Benardo Kastrup on your podcast. Would be amazing!

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Yes

[@Bassini007]

Yes please!

[@uninspired3583]

He's overly aggressive with his rhetoric, and all his arguments rely on poorly framed intuition pumps. Alex can do better.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@uninspired3583 lay out one of his arguments?

[@highvalence7649]

​@@uninspired3583all his arguments?

[@Fryingpan-b1o]

What people seem not to understand is that the physical storage location of what produces triangles, be it as it were in a compute, is separate to the physical location of the projection of such triangle. There is no screen in the case of the mind, wherefore there is no location for this projection to occur. Alex is perfectly correct in his scepticism here. I'm assuming that just as we process sense data into experience, we most likely can materialise internal impulses as well that are produced independently of a posteriori experience.

[@FlakyScalp]

This is known as the "phenomenological fallacy." You're thinking of consciousness as if it involves a self looking at images rendering on a screen. And then on the supposition that consciousness takes place in the brain, you are looking for this screen there. But there doesn't need to be a screen or an actual image at all. All you know from introspection is the content of the representation (in this case the content is a triangle.) You have no access to the medium of the representation. But it is natural to assume that the representation must be iconic (meaning the representation's medium visually resembles the content, like an icon). Why do you have no access to the medium of consciousness? Because everything you ever experience is by definition within consciousness, so you cannot get outside of it in order to contrast it with anything else. It should lastly be noted that the brain, just as with any other object, cannot be accessed as a "thing in itself", but only in the limited way our mind can represent it based on sensory inputs.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Is the red triangle I’m currently imagining in my brain?

[@FlakyScalp]

@PhysicsWithoutMagic Yes, in a sense at least. Your brain is in a certain state that you introspectively recognise and label as "red triangle". My point is that you don't know what this representation consists in via introspection. An iconic representation is just one of many ways of representing.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@FlakyScalp no, not “in a sense” is it there… is it actually there? I’ll settle for something in the shape of a triangle even if it’s not red…

[@FlakyScalp]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic If you mean something you would visually perceive as a red triangle, no. Visual perception is one way of interpreting the world, not the only.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@FlakyScalp okay, then you haven’t addressed at all where the TRIANGLE exists. That you can point to something THAT IS NOT A TRIANGLE but that exists when I imagine a triangle does not show that the triangle has physical existence. It seems it does not - and yet it still exists. Proving that things immaterial do exist

[@OverlyHonestGaming]

DUDE IVE HAD THIS EXACT SAME THOUGHT!!! We can explain the sensory input and perception and processing with materialism, but we fundamentally can't explain why we experience those things in the way that we do, because it is fundamentally not a material thing.

[@partydean17]

Because it is an idea and not material. Alex's objection is CORRECT

[@ASTROPLANET13]

Argument from ignorance, yikes. Just because you can't touch spacetime, it would still be stupid and nonsensical to claim its immaterial. It's this lack of abstract thinking of what counts as "material" that allowed to Aether model of the universe to persist as long as it did before Einstein. Is space "empty"? It depends on how abstract you can think without throwing out critical thinking.

[@Kobriks1]

​@@ASTROPLANET13 You're missing the point, it's about why qualia exist at all.

[@ASTROPLANET13]

@@Kobriks1 No, I understand the question. What I don't undertdsnd is, why/how is there a "realm" containing intellectual ideas or the soul? How does those even relate to the "issue" of qualia. Why qualia exists is honestly boring and somewhat nonsensical, unless dicussed through the lense of evolution or AI. If you didn't have qualia, could you ask why you had qualia? The question ignores the anthropic principle. *HOW* qualia works is a much more eganging and potentially has a feasible answer. I haven't expirenced ego death first hand, but psychedelics reinforce my material worldview. If 100 micrograms of LSD can literally distort my perception of reality, other emergent properties such as the self can easily be inferred to be inherently physical. Where does the immaterial factor into qualia?

[@orbismworldbuilding8428]

Take the screen away from the computer, the computer is still handling information about triangles but its just information stored in the physical components. Add a screen to someone's brain and see their thoughts visualized, (a real technology in development), now its silly to ask if there's a triangle in there when we remove the screen, because a human can talk and tell us about a triangle without a screen. Maybe computers just have locked-in syndrome

[@kadenhansen948]

I view consciousness as the communication between cells, so it cant be physically found, but communication with the occipital lobe can happen whether the stimulus is real light coming through the eyes or the frontal cortex recreating those images

[@zechariah22]

My senses are just signals to the brain. If I can replicate those signals, like the signals you get when you see a triangle in real life, I can picture that same triangle as if it were there without it actually being there. That is called imagination, and it's a completely material experience. The big question is, why am I aware at all? Why can I know I'm aware? We know we are aware, but we don't understand how that works, even if everything is telling us that it's the product of a certain arrangement of atoms, which everything that we know so far is telling us that.

[@nervozaur]

No, wait, the screen shows the image but that's only a representation of the zeroes and ones going through the processor. "Zeroes and ones" that are going through your brain too, we just interpret those "zeroes and ones" in a different way. I'm not sure, but this seems to make some sense.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

The screen is MATERIAL and contains a triangle. Where is the MATERIAL part of the brain that contains a triangle??

[@joratto2833]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic Some physical network of neurons that fire in a particular way whenever you look at a triangle

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@joratto2833 yes but it’s not triangular and therefore is not even close to BEING the triangle

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@joratto2833 thus, we still haven’t located where this triangle exists *materially* Next thought: it DOESN’T exist materially. Perceptions are NON-MATERIAL. Meaning: materialism (the idea that everything that exists must be material) is wrong.

[@screamofortnite123]

Yep. Both depend on some kind of material substrate or process.

[@allthenewsordeath5772]

This is basically what us folks who believe in a soul think namely, the brain is the hardware the soul is the software, and what we perceive as consciousness in this life is that interaction.

[@ShortFilmVD]

Surely this necessitates an interface between the souls and the body, an API (to follow the analogy). And if that were the case, while the soul may be beyond our physical realm and therefore unobservable, it's interactions and the effects it has on reality should be measurable. We'd expect to see bits our world change (the electrochemical reactions in one's brain) without physical impetus. This would, of course, violate the first law of thermodynamics, which doesn't bother me (happy to change laws to reflect reality), but in all of our observing and studying, we're yet to see evidence of this. That's not so say it cannot be, but many would have expected that we'd know about it by now. Granted, there could be a very special mechanism in which energy is somehow conserved or which evades detection, meaning we could never detect it, but again we'd expect to be able to perceive a boundary where this works, no?

[@KylewithaHat]

What do you mean 'there is no interface', you are seeing things, not the inside of your head

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

No MATERIAL interface

[@KylewithaHat]

This to me is a really unimportant distinction - okay so part of the brain serves to communicate with the 'self', possibly really hard to pinpoint which exact part, still a material thing, why would we think otherwise?

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@KylewithaHatmy comment isn’t posting I think

[@wabdih]

He is not talking about stimuli coming in through your eyes. Imagine an elephant in your head right now. For many for us we can literally picture it. In that situation there is no material place where that picture exists

[@KylewithaHat]

​@@wabdihI was never talking about visual stimuli - the information for the picture exists in the brain, and then received by our consciousness, it becomes an elephant

[@Biomechanic2010]

Alex, you took your metaphor too far. The computer, and people, don't necessarily have to project a triangle. Just as the computer is experiencing the triangle before it's displayed- you're not seeing a triangle, you're processing one. We know this because we've done studies that really imply we're producing reality about 1/5 of a second before we fact check against it

[@nemboticska]

Could you elaborate on your last sentence? This sounds super interesting

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Computers don’t experience anything

[@Biomechanic2010]

@@nemboticskaIf you can, I would recommend reading scientific american's "the neuroscience of reality" as a good primer. Effectively, the idea that our brain is constructing our reality is a bit too simple of a model. Even at a filtering level, there are systems, often ganglia, that are doing pre-perception filtering, using autonomic processes to prioritize information. Your brain doesn't have to do all of it and actually acts on very little spatial data before assigning value assessments and creating a collective impression. But then, additionally, the brain has compensated for the neural highway taking about 70ms before you can even get visual information to your brain, yet we don't perceive that lag despite people trained being able to respond to a stimulus at a fastest rate of around 200ms. The whole process should take around 350ms from input to output (like a muscle beginning to initiate), so instead, we use a multitude of data from different sensory inputs that 1, can act independent of conscious acknowledgement (most reflexes are occult in nature, like your eyes focusing or your skin prickling), but 2) the information with which the brain projects is drawn from prior experience. People who expect ghosts presence are apt to see more ghosts in the world, despite the same inputs not being evidence for ghosts for someone lacking that expectation. What this means is that to see the world as it is most accurately, we have to be aware of our proclivity of producing the world that comports with our worldview. What I believe is prudent regarding that proclivity is to have a high standard of evidence, such that our worldviews could best comport to reality as it exists, not as we project it. I.E. some people believe really bogus shit to reinforce their fantastical thinking.

[@Biomechanic2010]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic True, but if we had a system within a computer that provides feedback, and then those feedback mechanisms informed and regulated different synthesis systems that summarized that data to the computer as a generalized "feeling," and further yet, the computer had additional systems to analyze and create internally-consistent hierarchies of how this feedback worked, you would start getting a computer that describes its experience as feeling, which isn't unlike what we're currently doing. When I heard Dali was prone to "hallucination" my first reaction was just, "oh cool- just like humans." They're just slower, and you can pause the hallucination mid-construction. Imagine the difficulty in observing a process that takes 1/20th of a second. Impairing brain association zones is a relatively good facilitator for what might be the most appropriate analog, where the synthesis of multi-modal data is impaired and absent feeling. Unfortunately, subjects experiencing this phenomena are necessarily unreliable reporters of this experience, since they are absent the mechanistic capability to report the experience that they aren't having.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@Biomechanic2010 it doesn’t matter what a computer describes - it won’t have experiences. Nor does running multiple processes change anything. This is called “the hard problem” - and it’s unsolvable because non-mental material does not generate consciousness

[@kevinadams9468]

This young man is such an inspiration. So articulate and easy to listen to.

[@bennettsnyder315]

By this logic, a DVD disproves materialism.

[@andrewprahst2529]

Why?

[@bennettsnyder315]

​@@andrewprahst2529 because if you cut open the DVD you're not going to find the movie inside

[@etienne_laforet]

​@@bennettsnyder315So you are smarter than Roger Penrose, who uses strong arguments to refute the idea that consciousness is reducible to matter 😆👍

[@bennettsnyder315]

@@etienne_laforet Yep. That's exactly what I was trying to say. I'm smarter than Roger Penrose. That's the only way to interpret what I wrote. You absolutely nailed it.

[@bennettsnyder315]

@@etienne_laforet Also, a quick look into Penrose leads me to believe that you've both overstated his authority and misrepresented his conclusions. But go off king.

[@GrantH2606]

People misunderstanding the fact that the brain imagining a triangle sees the triangle _without_ a display interface. Obviously the triangle is stored as binary inside the computer, but it cannot be being seen without a display.

[@Raphael4722]

So many people denying the mystery that is the existence of qualia, kind of makes me lose hope in humanity lol. It's probably borne out of a fear of giving credence to religion. But there are plenty of arguments against the Abrahamic religions (which don't depend on materialism). We shouldn't let this fear stifle our philosophical discussions.

[@jonutsthedanklordpayton]

​@@Raphael4722And so many people giving credence to it keeps my hope of humanity low.

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

But you could look at a computer's ram or frame buffer and identify the data of the triangle. The issue here is not a misunderstanding of Alex, but a misunderstanding of how computer works and dorks like me popping out of the woodwork to try and explain it

[@GrantH2606]

@@Fernando-ek8jp Great, you can identify where the triangle is stored in memory and the pixel data associated with it, but again, you cannot visually see the rendered result of the triangle without a display interface.

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

@@GrantH2606 But why does that matter? That's kind of an "us" issue when it comes to perception ain't it? On a display there's no triangle either, it's a bunch of independent, discreet pixels with different colors. No displays can show lines, just assorted dots that we interpret as lines. If can't accept pointing out to the data that represents the triangle, then I don't see why you accept your mind playing tricks on you as a triangle.

[@chriss2452]

As a person suffering from afantasia, I can testify to the horror of not having any images in my mind at all, eyes opened or closed. I can no longer visualize things in my head. It's like a computer with a disconnected screen.

[@uubuilds]

When you say you can no longer do it did you used to be able to visualize? I have aphantasia myself but I’ve just never been able to visualize, though I guess that has the benefit of meaning I don’t really suffer with it as I don’t understand what I’ve lost and therefore it doesn’t feel like I’ve lost anything if that makes sense as I’ve never had it

[@chriss2452]

@@uubuilds Yes. I had the ability but lost it.

[@robadkerson]

Imagine asking "where" chatgpt keeps the memory of an idea of a triangle

[@Sweeti924]

And then destroying the computer to find the shape lol

[@partydean17]

There's no idea in chatgpt

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

No one would ask that because it isn’t an equivalent question

[@robadkerson]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic a triangle appears to be weighted neurons in brains and in LLMs.

[@orbismworldbuilding8428]

​@@PhysicsWithoutMagic yeah chatgpt is abstracted twice. A computer running a software/information of something that acts vaguely like neurons, that in turn carry information

[@rishabhthakur8773]

I think, it is easy to explain why, where is the triangle. The hard part to explain is why we are experiencing it . Triangle can change to square, but who is one, who is watching both .

[@partydean17]

But you can't destroy triangle You can't reduce it. You can't destroy it. Any you can t even touch it. It's beyond you. It will always be

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Then give an answer: where is the red triangle I’m currently imagining?

[@rishabhthakur8773]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic in consciousness

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@rishabhthakur8773 and not in any physical-spatial location, right?

[@rishabhthakur8773]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic physical - spatial location (s) are also located in consciousness. There is nothing outside consciousness. ( I can be wrong) .

[@nothanniballecktor9633]

Consciousness is the ability to sense stimuli and respond to it. A pulley has a rudimentary form of consciousness. A plant, more complex, with more capability to sense and respond to stimulus, has a more complex form of consciousness. A human, whose mind is extremely complex with the ability to sense stimulus, respond to it, recreate it in a controlled virtual environment (which is created by the process of sensing and responding to stimulus itself), respond to it, etc. has a yet more complex form of consciousness. There's no reason to believe consciousness is anything other than the processes that can fundamentally be boiled down to stimulus and response in patterns of varied complexity.

[@marklabuschagne7499]

A computer doesn’t need a screen for the triangle to exist in some other form, such as a mapping (of some sort) in the computer’s memory. We say computer’s don’t “know” only because we can reduce its function into something we can describe precisely. We know a fair bit about the physics of how the brain works and what its constituents are, but we don’t understand the “mapping”, if you will. But that doesn’t mean materialism couldn’t explain it per se. Hence, this does not necessarily disprove materialism. Big fan of the channel, Alex!

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

A triangle is “some other [non-triangular] form” is NOT a triangle

[@sandmancesar]

It seems that little by little this guy’s coming to the realization of what the spiritual world is.

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

At best you're kind of right that he's just pointing out our gals in knowledge. Appealing to the unknown for those gaps is still fallacious though.

[@drainenjoyer]

I have had this EXACT question, so glad to see it get a platform

[@Sweeti924]

Imagination, life is your creation Come on drainenjoyer let’s go party. God of the gaps= 👀

[@drainenjoyer]

@@Sweeti924 i dont think i fully understand you, but yeah i agree that reality is a creation of the mind, neither material nor immaterial (since theses are just concepts by the mind)

[@XOPOIIIO]

I can download a picture of a triangle on my phone and switch it off, the triangle disappear, but it's still in the memory. If I open up the memory, I wouldn't see the triangle there. That's because the triangle is just encoded in the memory, it's not sitting there literally. Just like the triangle you see in your imagination is an image, encoded in your brain cells.

[@Dhruvbala]

Where is my imagination displayed

[@XOPOIIIO]

@@Dhruvbala It's displayed in your brain. You can notice the imagination is not as clear as seeing directly, that't because brain cells prefer to communicate with concepts rather than pixels.

[@Phoboskomboa]

@@Dhruvbala you can imagine something, and then draw it. If you're skilled, we can even recognize what it's supposed to be. This is exactly the same thing as a file in a computer displaying an image on a monitor. The monitor just has machine precision in reproducing the image perfectly. I can prove humans can do this, too, for simple enough images. A game of tic-tac-toe can be seen as the same as a 2-bit 3x3 pixel image. You could easily memorize that, and then perfectly reproduce it. Thus, the human brain is exactly the same thing as a computer when it comes to storing images and reproducing them. Just with very different limitations and abilities, as we tend to remember things more as the generalized concept. This is something we CAN teach computers to do now, with machine learning and generative AI. Every single trait of human memory can be reduced to quantifiable attributes in the interconnection of neurons. This is why we had to develop neural networks with similar interconnections in order to teach a computer the abstract concept of a triangle, rather than defining a triangle via vertexes in a virtual space every single time.

[@av8r195]

that's literally like saying the word "triangle" is a triangle because your brain can translate it to an actual triangle you see inside your head. it's not. a triangle is a shape. a shape isnt any piece of information that could translate into that shape. that line of thinking would lead to quite literally Everything being a triangle

[@XOPOIIIO]

@@av8r195 You're not have an actual triangle in your head, just the information about it.

[@cabellocorto5586]

This position takes for granted that everyone thinks the same way. There is a population of people who cannot envision anything in their imagination, this is called aphantasia. Yet they still function as anyone else does. So that goes to show that this conscious phenomena isn't fundamental or even vital to life or consciousness.

[@DemainIronfalcon]

I did not know this, that would help in researching this concept of conceptualization in the mind eye I would think.

[@zak2659]

Lol that last sentence is just a pure non-sequitur. How does "consciousness isn't fundamental" follow from "people have aphantasia". Can you explain what connection you think is there?

[@DemainIronfalcon]

We just have our mind. 'there is no interface', I'd push back at that statement. I think our interface is our mind eye, we may not understand how it works, but we can all picture material objects in our mind. Our memory is triggered by picturing people objects, colours that brings back a sense of that which we are thinking about. What I find more fascinating is the strong feeling we feel when we focus our thought on a particular time on our past, such as living in a certain place, going on a very enjoyable holiday, having a relationship, anything that gives a strong emotive response from your past when you focus your thought on that particular time. Fir example I get a very high emotive response when I think about my trip overseas when I was 5 and 6 years old, this is a good example because I only have small snippets of memory, but I have many of them and creates a very enjoyable adventurous feeling in myself that I enjoy. These feelings that memories like this emote are definitely not materialistic, the feelings are evoked by thinking of objects and people, places etc.. but the feeling is just that a in this case pleasant sensation that releases endorphins in my brain and I feel good. I've also found as others would have I'd that the memories need to be recharged with the emotion, if I try to continually think about the holiday overseas to get the good feelings it emotes it will diminish, to get the same good feeling I will have to not think about it for a while which allows the emotion attached to these memories to recharge.. So there it is, I have no idea why I just wrote thos comment or if it relates to this video now. I did at first think it did, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't now.. Peace to all✌️

[@sushobhanmandal9844]

Congratulations to everyone who thinks they have an answer to Alex's question 😅

[@ASTROPLANET13]

Don't be naive. Think in nuance. Rebuttals don't have to be an "answer". I'm legitimately surprised, even from a devils advocate position, that Alex would engage in an obvious appeal to ignorance. I'm such a layman when it comes to computer programming, *LET* * ALONE* computer engineering, that it might as well be magic...but it obviously isn't. Just because we don't understand *totally* "biological binary" doesn't mean an "immaterial" soul exists. Like I said, I'm honestly shocked Alex would think this passes as good devils advocacy. Maybe the clip goes on to refute his point, idk. It fundamentally exposes the ontological flaw of the supernatural. The second "the supernatural" interacts with the "natural", it immediately loses its "superness". It seems counterintuitive to focus on the part that is explicitly described as being beyond human comprehension. Just seems like an excuse for the religious to philosophically argue for the soul.

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

The rub here isn't with Alex's overarching point, it's primarily because his analogy just straight up doesn't support what he thinks it does. By that I don't mean that materialism is true, just that you can quite literally interact with "objects" in a computer without a display, and even see the instructions for the drawing, or where in memory a shape is, or the location of the file containing an image

[@JHeb_]

​@@ASTROPLANET13 Who's talking about supernatural? The argument is made against materialism, not naturalism.

[@JHeb_]

​@@Fernando-ek8jp But with a computer you don't have the same kind of structural mismatch between the phenomenal structure of the experienced triangle and the physical structure of the hardware.

[@ASTROPLANET13]

@JHeb_ If consciousness isn't material, then what is it then? Most people who disagree that it is material wholly or partially would say that consciousness emanates from the soul. Materialism is a branch within naturalism.

[@CMVMic]

Consciousness is not an objection to materialism. Consciousness is a label given to a brain's cognitive events

[@etienne_laforet]

So you are smarter than Roger Penrose, who uses strong arguments to refute the idea that consciousness is reducible to matter 😉👍

[@etienne_laforet]

So you are smarter than Roger Penrose, who uses strong arguments to refute the idea that consciousness is reducible to matterSo you are smarter than Roger Penrose, who uses strong arguments to refute the idea that consciousness is reducible to matter❤

[@CMVMic]

@@etienne_laforet consciousness is not reducible to matter, it is reducible to the activiry of matter. Also, Roger Penrose maybe be smarter than me in alot of areas but not this one if he disagrees

[@HellaGust]

@@etienne_laforet If he *is* smarter than Roger Penrose then he has scientific consensus on his side. Penrose represents a minority view. You may as well turn it around and ask yourself if you think you are smarter than the large number of scientists who do not accept Penrose's arguments. But let's instead look at some facts surrounding the issue: It might very well be that quantum mechanics will one day turn out to disprove materialism, but the idea that it does or will is also to the best of my knowledge not a majority view. And even if it was it's by no means proven. And all Penrose suggests (unproven and not in any way a majority view in the field) that consciousness is only possible through quantum mechanics. And this is then used together with the idea that Quantum Mechanics reject materialism. Neither is a generally accepted idea. I can't say that both statements *won't* eventually be proven true if our understanding increases. But saying that because a hypothesis cannot be disproven it is most likely true is just Russsel's Teapot.

[@SonnyWane]

Wth, no! That would merely be neurons firing, consciousness is not the "brain's cognitive events" lol

[@jpbaley2016]

The one thing is not everyone can picture things in their mind. I know I am conscious. I have memory. But, I am unable to picture anything. I don’t have a “mind’s eye.” Therefore, being able to picture things in your mind is not linked to consciousness.

[@rickybloss8537]

The screen is your short-term memory system.

[@waperboy]

This whole tirade is just the argument from personal incredulity.

[@Weaverine]

There has to be an 'I', to have 'I don't believe in 'I''

[@jgoogle4256]

The consciousness problem is deeper than that bub

[@marekb1556]

​​@@jgoogle4256 Yeah, it is. But the argument Alex made isn't. You can't just appeal to the complexity of the broader topic when the comment was clearly addressing that specific triangle argument

[@jgoogle4256]

@@marekb1556 the original commenter seems to not understand

[@bayleev7494]

personal... incredulity? pointing out a difference in two situations that someone is claiming are analogous is not just personal incredulity. there is a fundamental difference between the image produced by a computer on a screen in the material world, and the image produced by the mind: the computer image can be located and measured, the mind's image cannot. the information that the computer is processing is not the same as the light source producing the image, and the synapses firing in one's brain are not the same as the source of the mind's image.

[@Joey_Fury]

There are various phenomena that “emerge” from existing matter. For instance, the physical property of having mass leads to the emergent phenomenon of the gravitational force. For some reason many people find it necessary to say that these emergent phenomena are “immaterial” or attribute some other mysterious word to them. Certain physical configurations of the brain, and biochemical reactions within it, lead to the phenomenon of conscious experience and visualization. These physical configurations and biochemical reactions are necessary preconditions to make these things happen. Saying the experiences are “immaterial” is just metaphysical “woo woo” and has no explanatory value.

[@Joey_Fury]

I haven’t seen the full conversation, but this is also an important opportunity for Alex to discuss how the brain forms images and how our visual system works. The brain can “see things” that are both “physically there” and “not physically there”. When you look at a chair, your eyes are receiving light that is being reflected off the chair, then your brain is interpreting that light and forming a mental image. However, this process of image-forming can occur even in the absence of incoming light waves and effectively makes it possible for us to “see things that aren’t actually there.” I think expounding on this is important because the clip seems to make some assumption that when you see the triangle on the screen, you really know it physically exists in reality; whereas the triangle from your dream seems to be existing in some mysterious, undefined metaphysical space. The reality of how our visual processing works, is that both triangles exist in the mind.

[@calandula4099]

The difference in my opinion is that you can actually measure gravity, while you can't measure conscious experience directly. You can only measure the neural states associated with conscious experience, but this is not the same as having the conscious experience. To have the conscious experience, the neural state you measure has to be reproduced in your own brain. So the only access an entity like a computer can have to conscious experience isn't by just examining the neural states associated with it, but by recreating the neural states in it's own system, i.e to become conscious itself. If the computer can't recreate the neural states associated with conscious experience in it's own system, it will never understand what conscious experience is, even though it may know everything there is about neural states that produce conscious epxerience.

[@calandula4099]

So for a system or an entity to know about conscious experience, it simply has to be conscious itself and experience the qualia itself. Otherwise it will never know what conscious experience is. You can discuss conscious experience with ChatGPT and it can tell you something about neurology that is involved in producing conscious experience, but ChatGPT obviously has no clue about conscious experience. A mere objective description of the brain states that lead to conscious experience isn't enough to know conscious experience. As i said, the only access to conscious experience is to be conscious yourself. You also can't "reduce" conscious experience like you can reduce stones to molecules and molecules to atoms. You can't reduce the "redness of red" to anything else.

[@haph2087]

Alex's mind is going to be blown when he finds out computers can use triangles without displaying them on the screen.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

“Use”…?? You’d be more convincing - but also obviously wrong - if you claimed they could posses/contain triangles without a screen

[@haph2087]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic Are you under the impression that for a computer to use a triangle it *must* display it on a screen, or that computers are incapable of using triangles?

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@haph2087 I don’t even know what you mean by a computer “using” a triangle

[@BobDingus-bh3pd]

How does a material computer conceive of the existence of a metaphysical triangle? Without being informed by a human’s capacity to consciously think of a triangle? Where is the information for that ability stored in a computer? A computer is just a material interface for processing thoughts and symbols we’ve already assigned meaning to. So I don’t think we’re any closer or further to the answer with this analogy.

[@haph2087]

@@BobDingus-bh3pdI'm not arguing that computers are identical to brains. I'm saying that alex's dismissal of "the triangle is on the screen" missed the point.

[@JackMault]

Here's your answer, Alex. You cannot picture anything that you have not seen before (at least at a component or aspect resolution). Its stored as a type of memory, which you can imagine is like a compressed imprint of the image (or collection of referanced images) in the same format as it was originally taken in by the visual cortex. This same visual cortex is what the brain uses to give you the image of the Triangle in your conscious awareness. Thanks!

[@JosephParker7]

It explains the specific phenomenon that allows someone to perceive triangle, but it also "presupposes" the existence of qualia without explaining why or how it can exist or emerge from inert material processes. It'd be equivalent to saying that things fall because there's gravity, when the question is, why or how that mechanism emerged in the first place. That's a limitation of functionalism

[@jgoogle4256]

Yeah, you still haven’t addressed the consciousness problem which was the entire point of the video.

[@bonkchoy5544]

but where is the conscious awareness emanating from? where in the cytoarchitecture?? tell me!!

[@Mekelsior]

We are dualistic beings, we interact with the material world through our bodies, but are free in our mind to dream and imagine anything we like. We create our own reality as well, but are currently bound by laws of the material world, so we cannot by imagination sprout wings and fly in the material world. We can however create interfaces where this is possible, such as computer games, or dungeons and dragons. Both of these things exist and utilize the same concept of imagination. :)

[@davidm5707]

Science still doesn't know how you get from "brain" to "mind". That doesn't mean it's supernatural.

[@drewdrake9130]

They're trying really hard to say it does though.

[@JHeb_]

@@drewdrake9130 The argument is against materialism, not naturalism.

[@TheWizard10008]

Does consciousness disprove materialism? Yes.

[@Rogstin]

How? Have we fully and concretely decided what consciousness is? Do we have as complete an understanding as we can get of physical reality? It seems a bit *bold* to state that one _fuzzy_ idea disproves another _fuzzy_ idea when we are so far from sufficient understanding of either.

[@TheWizard10008]

@@Rogstin As if spoken to a materialist…..The materialist believes that the brain generates consciousness. But why? Can you tell me how the brain generates consciousness? In other words, how does matter generate consciousness? Why do you believe matter does generate consciousness? You have a deeply ingrained assumption that matter produces consciousness. You’re trying to find a theory of consciousness that confirms or supports that assumption. Could the assumption be wrong? That consciousness is a byproduct of matter. The assumption is not in line with our experience. Our experience is that everything takes place in consciousness. Consciousness is the primary element of experience. It is not secondary. It wasn’t developed at some late stage of evolution. Our experience is that consciousness is primary and everything takes place within it. As soon as you begin a model of reality with a belief of something outside of consciousness called matter. Then that first step is an unverifiable belief. All subsequent theories as they evolve will contain that original belief, which can never be verified. Can you find anything in your experience that is prior to and independent of consciousness? Can anyone or has anyone ever found anything in experience that is prior to or independent of consciousness? This stuff called matter is a belief, but no one has ever found it. We believe it’s there, but nobody has ever found it. No only do we believe it’s there, but we believe it generates the only thing that we do experience which is consciousness. So we believe that which has never experienced gives rise to that which is always experienced. Start there and stay there.

[@Dionysus66]

@@Rogstin It seems to me that physical reality and material objects exist as a product of consciousness, not the other way around. Materialism is fantastically useful, but to claim that reality is ‘material’ is to make a mistake. Our reality is material because that is how we experience the world around us. We perceive things as material, materialness/physicality is an innate part of our experiences. But true reality is beyond just how we experience the world.

[@Rogstin]

@@Dionysus66 I semi-agree. However, we can't say that physical reality exists as a product of consciousness. What we can say is that our _perception_ of such objects are the product of consciousness. Maybe those objects are not really there, maybe they are. Maybe our perceptions are accurate, maybe they aren't. _True_ reality is irrelevant. Only our perceived reality is relevant. We are trying to find the rules for the game we are in, not the rules outside the game. It is both impossible to do and irrelevant to us.

[@Dionysus66]

@@Rogstin yeah, but I’m also saying that the ‘physicalness’ ‘materialness’ of objects and the reality we live in are a part of that very perception. In that way physical reality as we experience it is a product of our perception and consciousness.

[@sordidknifeparty]

You might as well ask the question, "how do we see anything?". When my eyes are open and I'm looking at a triangle, and then I perceive that triangle, where is that perception occurring? There's no place in my brain where you would find a little representation (literal) I fought my eyes are seeing, instead you would just find a Cascade of neurons firing whose shape in no way resembles what I'm seeing. Regardless of this, what we can say with confidence is that we have never observed any form of perception from any creature which is not accompanied by an Associated brain state. Just because we don't understand the mechanism by which our perception occurs, does not mean that magic is happening, as I'm very surprised Alex seems to be saying

[@JHeb_]

So materialism is the only non-magical position now? Really?

[@JHeb_]

So materialism is the only non-magical position now? Really?

[@philswaim392]

Actually you can get a computer to produce the thought of a computer without projecting the image on a screen. Cmon Alex, youre better than this

[@SevereFamine]

Is the computer self aware?

[@philswaim392]

@SevereFamine doesnt need to be. Just needs to process the right signals Just like our brains.

[@JHeb_]

​@@philswaim392 So, sending a signal is the necessary condition for awareness? Is there a subject of experience arising from our current communication?

[@philswaim392]

@@JHeb_ thought doesnt equal awareness but is a necessary step towards it.

[@JHeb_]

​@@philswaim392 thought is within awareness but not separable from it. Much like a wave is not separate from the ocean but it is also not the whole ocean. What I am questioning here is that mere signal-processing is enough to constitute for subjective experience.

[@Rydonattelo]

Awsome take. I feel sorry for people that don't have an minds eye. I remember the first time I became aware that a lot of people couldn't see pictures in their mind when I girl I was seeing in school had no idea what I was talking about when I said I could actually see an image in my mind where for her she could think of a triangle say but it didn't manifest in an image of an actual triangle. She instead knew what a triangle was so she could think about a triangle in the sense that she knows what it is from life experience but can't generate images . Her dreams were feelings that she didn't actually witness. This very common. If you can generate images in your eyes mind like this chap is describing then you are quite fortunate.

[@ParkerFriedChicken]

That point about dreams is gonna stick with me. When I was younger I could control my dreams. Maybe I had a better capacity for mindfulness.

[@ParadoxProblems]

Its the same question as "where" is the sensory experience of looking at a real triangle. It's not at the location of the triangle in 3d space, and its not on your retina, though it 'feels' like it is. Whenever you get burned, the pain isn't actually on your arm, its in the same "place" the triangle is in.

[@_quit_2507]

💀 i dont think these comments understand that simply stating the brain is a computer isn't enough. it doesn't explain how we can "feel", and if you say that it is an emergent quality, that is arguably not a physicalist stance. basically, take the conclusion of the brain being like a computer and try to explain it and see its consequences.

[@Isaac.Rochester]

I love philosophy and want to understand both arguments. Here's my understanding of what's being said. Is this a fair representation? Materialism holds that ALL things are material (spatially measurable) objects. This includes ALL images in the mind. If something is seen as an image, it exists as that image in the physical world in addition to the data of that image. Therefore, if the mind's eye is seeing a triangle, then somewhere in the brain there is a physical image of a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles that could be measured with a physical ruler; else people are not capable of seeing the triangles in their minds or materialism is wrong.

[@jamiefinn4438]

A better argument for this is invention in the mind, especially in a dream. There is a novel synthesis of ideas that are often unconscious, until of course it occurs. A strange detection mechanism of something that has never occurred in the mind before, is happening while the conscious mind is absent, and yet it is present enough to know that it has occurred. A truly wonderful thing. Something that I believe doesn’t step outside of the material fundamentally but a situation that we may never be able to understand. Fundamentally the idea of materialism simply implies that all that is physically in the universe determines all that occurs within it. It’s very hard to move outside of that.

[@CuriousAldo]

Consciousness is the iterative flow of information by electrical stimuli from the sensory organs reverberating in loops of image/form patterns in the synaptic circuitries. The iterative nature of image and form of electrical patterns in the brain fools us into thinking there is something more than the physical. That self awareness is something beyond the brain. Dan Dennett’s description of consciousness is the best I’ve seen.

[@Planarwalk]

A triangle on a screen is an output, whereas the trangle in the mind is an input. We can create programs that treat data produced by the computer as an input, so it's very likely our mind does the same with dreams.

[@7rich79]

A more apt comparison is that on your computer you have a virtual machine capable of rendering an image. The display is more like your eyes, that's the "interface". When you sleep, you're "seeing" things, but you're not using your eyes.

[@harmplat7771]

Our conscious experience is served up by the brain to us. We percieve the world through our senses (we see, smell, hear, feel things). These inputs are translated into neural network activation of which a fraction is picked up by our consciousness. That part is what we experience, or are made aware of. We then realize we smell, hear, see, feel things and may act on it. These patterns are somewhat remembered; in dreams we just reactivate these patterns (blended and mixed up with others).

[@stancollins6593]

The problem is when people only believe the physical world exists alone. There also exists the abstract world, some might call the transcendent or divine world. P.S. On a scarier note. If all these things exist in the abstract, then there must also exist an absence-a void. A void of which nothingness stares unblinkingly out at all of existence.

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

How did you conclude that those other worlds "exist"? How can "nothing" exist, specially as its own separate realm?

[@stancollins6593]

@@Fernando-ek8jp I use the word “world” loosely. I mean a perception of reality. We comprehend physical space and abstract space. Nothing is another matter: Draw out a circle. Place everything in that circle and call it reality. What is outside that circle? More than nothing, it is nothingness. All that we cannot comprehend. Something outside that space. It must exist in the same way that if I tell 1000 lies, in everything I DONT say I am implying a concrete Truth. If I tell an infinite number of lies, I will have outlined the shape of Truth. Where there is good, there is evil; where there is light, there is dark; where there is truth, there are lies; where there is existence, there is non-existence (as paradoxically as that may sound).

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

@@stancollins6593 That just sounds like claims based more on phylosophy rather than, well, evidence. For example, what we call light and dark are just based on what we perceive with our own biological machinery. "Light" is just the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Everything, including the deepest recesses within your body, are currently emitting radiation. If our eyes were able to perceive a stupidly wide spectrum, "darkness" would not, in fact, exist basically anywhere. When it comes to good and evil, lies and truths, those are all relative to our morality and understanding. If I say "I won the lottery" but I "know" that's false, am I lying if I actually won the lottery but didn't check the numbers on my ticket? Is a lie a lie because it doesn't match reality or because of the intentions/knowledge of the person making a claim? Also, if I place everything in a circle, what even is the "nothingness" "outside" of it? That's almost like saying "before time", it doesn't work beyond a colloquial expression. Inside and outside are relative spatial terms, not cosmolgical transcendent properties. (also how do you fit everything within a 2D space? Is everything 2D? I know I'm being pedantic, but that's just to hammer home the point as to how just because something sounds like it makes sense doesn't really mean it does when you try and work it out)

[@Boylieboyle]

I've never felt any affinity with Alex before but this is bang on. It's like he just had his first spliff or something. Respect

[@DH-rj2kv]

This is not a very strong argument. However, Roger Penrose makes some very good arguments that consciousness is indeed not computable. One of my very simplified favorites is the proof of Gödel’s theorem. We can understand that there is a true statement that cannot be proven with logical operators from a given set of true statements. So how can we understand that if computation cannot prove it? He relates it to the collapse of the wave function in the brain though it us unknown how the brain can man rain quantum states (maybe microtubules).

[@yourik2y283]

Its not just the mind, though. Your eyes are looking forward, and when you shut your eye lids the eye doesn't stop looking forward. Now you are staring into darkness, or more specifically a cover blocking the light. Seeing the triangle in the "minds eye" is the same as seeing it while staring into a dark room. Now when it comes to the act the visualizing something, real or hallucinatory, I'll admit I have no clue how that functions in the brain. But I would imagine that our mind is in a way creating everything we experience. It maps onto the real world but it's still a mental construct out of our senses. Thereby, I think it follows that if what we already experience is constructed out of stimuli and the brain translating that, the triangle comes from an overactive or understimulated brain creating its own stimuli.

[@vicdelta31415]

Visualization of our neural processing is not another plain of consciousness. It is simply the use of our senses as a concept that allows us to translate said processing by using a visual and sometimes auditory sense as an interface.

[@runespar]

Practicing Christian here. 👋 I gotta say that Alex’s willingness to play ball with ideas that make materialists uncomfortable (or at the very least play devil’s advocate) makes me realize Christians tend to criminally underestimate the importance of engaging people with different belief systems in healthy discussion. If skeptics are willing to take some of our beliefs seriously, we should do the same for them. Ridicule or dismissal is unhelpful no matter what side it comes from.

[@tayo6882]

It goes even beyond that. The experience of volition and its counterparts of happiness and guilt for right-/wrong-doing, the ethical dimension of life, the experience of personhood and the ability for attention are all hard fit neatly in a strict materialist framework.

[@jan_Sanku]

about a triangle rendered on a computer screen: the triangle doesn't have to be visible on screen to "exist" (using that word liberally) you can have a physics simulation involving collision with a triangle that's obscured by an opaque wall on screen. the triangle still exhibits its properties even when not visible, and will continue to do so in the same way even if you unplug the screen. something doesn't have to be visible (on a screen or your imagination) to "exist" in a virtual sense. the machine (a computer, or your brain) has information about the object or concept stored in its memory, and it can perform operations on it (such as simulations or renders). this process is entirely reducible to electrical signals in transistors or neurons, we just don't know how to read brains very well yet. basically, unplugging the screen doesn't change anything in the computer itself; IT can still ""see"" the triangle since it'll continue to render and simulate it. the screen is merely the interface for US to see what's in the computer. i believe we can create such an interface for our brains someday.

[@kkherco]

I have aphantasia and can’t see any images when I close my eyes at all. So whatever I don’t have is where the triangle is?

[@uubuilds]

As someone else with aphantiasia who has contemplated this a lot the understanding I have come to, at least for myself, is that the triangle is there I just don’t have a visual connection to it. At least for me, I can still understand a triangle and so things like special reasoning and yet I cannot do so visually. So what I think is happening in my brain, though very simplified, is that my imagination or whatever cortex is not connected to my visual cortex, but both are still there. Of course that’s very simplified and localization of function as a theory has many issues, but that’s how I think about it. So for me at least where the triangle is is not missing, but the interface by which I would experience it is missing, like a computer with no monitor, where it is processed and “there” but I cannot see it.

[@rickypaynetube]

I absolutely love this. A lot of Atheists are pure materialists and I have seen Atheist debaters say the phrase "consciousness is an emergent property of the brain" which is a stupid phrase. Not only that but where did that phrase come from? It has been repeated often yet no neuroscientist or philosopher even would say such a thing. The existence of consciousness hints at an immaterial plane of existence and this is something that Atheists will want to deny. Kudos to you for accepting the obvious reality of it.

[@bdnnijs192]

Neuroscientists are not philosophers, so don;t deal with the issue in that manner and philosophers don't want to put themselves out of a job by presenting a simple and obvious solution. "The existence of consciousness hints at an immaterial plane of existence and this is something that Atheists will want to deny." Atheists have no problem admitting an immaterial 'plane of existence' like mathematics or thought. Atheists do however object to a magic plane of existence with a magic man poofing stuff into physical existence through magic.

[@justtooobvious8667]

My initial thought is to push back and say that you actually cant see the same triangle that you thought you were looking at moments before. You won't be able to think of a "stable" triangle long enough to get it cut out. Just try and think of a triangle. It will always be moving just like your mind. I would say, based off this example, that the screen IS perception and consciousness... Right?

[@berczigabor]

The answer is that even if you see a "real" triangle, it's just in your mind, because in reality there are no triangles, and you don't precept reality as it is. Anything you "see" is only a concept in your mind. Not meant to convey that reality does not exist, just that whatever you precept as reality is something distinct from the actual reality (of atoms and waves).

[@JHeb_]

Atoms and waves are conceptually far more abstract to you than the phenomenology of your direct experience.

[@prod.xavgvst]

The triangle is still "there" (regardless of the screen ofc) in the information that can be decoded into a triangle. I would analogically expect the firing neurons in the brain to encode a triangle and being decoded by another part of the brain that perceives it. I guess my reductionist approach would assume that everything can be explained with the material, but that still doesn't mean that consciousness isn't amazing and valuable, as it's so difficult for it to emerge.

[@laughingwolf330]

I know nothing. Here is something I have experienced. In my experience, subject and object cannot be separated…one requires the other to exist. Examined more closely, it’s realized that “observation” is the only thing that is directly experienceable, and so able to be proven as “real.” I can only know any “thing” through the experience of it, which itself is observed (I am aware I have an experience by my noticing it, consciously - conscious awareness of the sensory perception I am experiencing, including emotion, which is an internal sense or feeling). This includes my experience of what I call “myself.” I “know” myself most clearly by the direct experience of being, which is sort of a direct sensing of existence, aliveness. When I sense this I realize this beingness or presence is able to be felt in all things - even “intangible” things like thought and emotion. I am able to sense that everything, tangible or otherwise, is this at the core: presence. It’s hard to describe. It is not a concept or philosophy, it is a real direct experience that is consciously noticed, and felt. When thought is let go, and I experience the purity of my be-ing which is not a noun, but a verb), I realize my very be-ing is conscious, or aware. I am essentially living motion; I am aware vibration; and I am becoming aware of myself as vibration. A living, feeling, breathing energy. Here is notice myself as much more than a physical form. I AM the form, but also that which is underneath it…or, encapsulating it. I feel I am inside myself. I feel that the mind is another expression of myself, which is born from the desire to experience my totality as thoroughly as possible - and as a collective totality, the best way to experience my limitless expanse is by the experience of “individual,” a limited lens, called I. Now I feel that consciousness does not live in the mind, the mind exists within the field of consciousness. From this experience I come to realize my “self” is not a mind, or a body, but this pure awareness. And that this awareness is experiencing itself through “me.” The only true knowledge is direct experience of, which means leaving behind, or transcending the mind - mental labels and intellectual understanding. I can learn everything about the sun; I can measure it, record data, examine it to the smallest detail. But none of that tells me anything about the experience of “sun.” None of that can be translated to the sensation of sunlight in my eyes, on my skin; the feeling I get looking up at this great, searing light above me. That experience is “sun” - not the facts about it. True knowledge is pure experience and is beyond words, which makes it impossible to actually talk about. But it can be pointed to. It takes moving past mind and into sensing. This is what was called gnosis. I am a fool, and the mind likes to hear itself talk. It is likely much of this makes no sense, and that’s alright. If all I am ever considered is a raving lunatic, I will still have my experience, and that is everything. I cannot prove my experience because it is mine alone. But it IS mine, and so, is my truth. If a tree falls in the forest, and no living thing is around to hear it, does it make a sound? No - it makes vibration, because everything is vibration, and at a basic level the tree is observing itself. But without an ear to interpret that vibration as sound, there is no sound.

[@Goob48]

Sherlock Holmes could uncover every piece of evidence of a crime, link them to the exact moments of each action taken by the culprit, and build a case that is 100% concurrent with the actual crime. However, he will never experience the crime as the culprit did. We could theoretically make a map of the exact neurons that fire when one visualizes a triangle. The data (neural impulses) is material, but the subjective experience is not. The material data and the experience/mental representation of that data are two different things.

[@cassif19]

Even if you don't have a display, the information is still in the computer. It exists inside the computer even if it is not displayed

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

By “the information” do you mean “the triangle”? If not, you haven’t addressed where the triangle is - it does exist, right?

[@mattermat1925]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic In the computer analogy, there is a separate block of memory called "screen memory". This stores the pattern of pixels that will be sent to a monitor, so it really does contain a triangle shape of dots within it, except the dots are numbers. Those numbers are then translated into coloured dots by the screen, but you could just as easily draw out the grid of memory locations on a piece of paper and see a triangle formed by numbers. The question becomes: does a brain have something equivalent to dedicated screen memory, or is visuospatial information held in a more abstract, dispersed way?

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@mattermat1925 no, there is no triangle shape in “screen memory” - you’re just bullshitting now, trying very hard to say there is a triangle where there isn’t one

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

@@mattermat1925 listen, this isn’t complicated: a triangle is a shape. Without the shape arrangement, there’s no triangle.

[@mattermat1925]

@@PhysicsWithoutMagic I'm not trying hard to do anything - it's just how computers work. They render into screen memory the required pattern of pixels, that is then sent to a screen. The screen/monitor is a grid of glowing dots and the screen memory is a grid of matching numbers. Even back when monitors were analogue, the same principle applied - the computer creates rows of values in screen memory that become rows on a CRT screen.

[@ltzmin]

So if you put cables up your head and connect it to a screen that shows the triangle will you be happy with that? Because I'm pretty sure it can be done

[@MirzaBicer]

I think a better way to "reduce the triangle to its materials" would be to say that the triangle is a collection of electrical signals between ~100 billion of neurons in your brain. Note that this is almost equivalent to seeing an actual triangle in front of you: *very* similar signals are fired upon seeing an actual identical triangle. I don't know if I identify as a materialist but I do believe that consciousness, well at least your example, can be reduced to material.

[@LaneBatman-c2v]

It’s so true. And I’ve found a way to make myself fall asleep quicker by trying to get the image generator going in my mind. As soon as I start seeing shapes my mind kind of takes over and starts dreaming

[@alibarznji2000]

I like this topic

[@ScarredRomeo]

Actually, sensory images like particular triangles that you can picture in your mind’s eyes so to speak are material. What aren’t and cannot be material are concepts or essences, which are abstract, effectively indivisible units of meaning, since they are universals. They are distinct from their particular instantiations, e.g., a black right triangle, or a transparent acute one, etc.

[@kylerolofson]

I think the computer analogy is mistaken but could be used still. The image isn't stored in the screen, but rather in a string of magnetic voltages on the hard drive. Though the exact chemical process is still unknown, the brain is doing something analogous with voltage changes in firing neurons. How these voltage changes result in perception and consciousness is a mystery and fascinating.

[@Luketherapy]

This line of thinking is what leads you to spirituality. Spirituality simply means that which is not material.

[@Luketherapy]

Spirit and consciousness are the same word

[@ericklopes4046]

I noticed that, when trying to visualize a triangle - yes, with my sight - with my eyelids closed shut, all my brain seems to be doing is selectively removing some visual artifacts from my sight. Try it now. Close your eyes, put your hand in front of them, don't let any light in. Try to see a triangle as much as you can. You'll notice that, at first, you'll see a blurry mess of darkness, composed of shadowy visual noises. But as you try to see a triangle... These noises start taking shape. And then it happens... You actually *see* it. It's like a self-induced hallucination. A visual artifact. That means that what the brain is doing, is basically filtering out visual input, to make it look like a triangle in your visual cortex. Your sight is behaving like a monitor that got hacked. Except the computer monitor receives only one signal. The signal that contains the instructions to print the triangle, coming from the HDMI input, which is the only input it has, and it displays that on sreen. Our "human monitors" however, seem to be receiving two signals: 1. Visual noise from our eyeballs. 2. Visual signal of a triangular shape from... Where? Where is signal 2 coming from? If we suppose that it's coming from our brains, then it must mean that signal 2 must be coming from the visual cortex, since a triangle only exists as a visual thing. If our visual cortex only displayed visual input from our eyeballs, then we'd only see the blurry dark mess. But since it has memories of a triangle, it can be hacked into displaying a triangle. The instructions are already there, all it has to do, is to run it. I suppose a person who was born blind cannot visualize a triangle in their mind, since their visual cortex has no set of instructions for a triangular shape. But they might be able to hallucinate the feeling of touching a triangular object. So something is hacking the visual cortex to run the triangle on top of the visual noise. To run signal 2 on top of signal 1, producing a visual artifact, an hallucination. It can happen with different stimuli, as with the innately blind person hallucinating touching a triangular shape instead of seeing it. But what's doing the hacking? Which part of our brain sends an instruction to the visual or tactile parts that says "print triangle now"? Of course, the easy answer is: You did. You chose to see the triangle. You tricked yourself into hallucinating it. But which part of you, exactly, sent that instruction to the visual cortex? Where is the hacking coming from?

[@MistakeLearned]

Observing a physical triangle is just an interpretation of signals generated by your visual system. Observing a triangle in your mind's eye is also an interpretation of very similar signals. The only difference is that the brain generates the signals internally. The resulting experience however is pretty much identical. The trick is to know when you are observing reality and when you are observing your own mind.

[@davidhouseman4328]

You don't really see things. You use the visual inputs to create a mental construct which you "see". You can also make a mental construct from memories and imagination.

[@JHeb_]

Whether it's un imagination or observation, it is still perceived. It's irrelevant to the argument if you don't directly see it.

[@davidhouseman4328]

@JHeb_ It's relevant in that he frames it starting with a dream. Dream or physical doesn't really matter when both are mental constructs.