Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 169 times
Contact:

Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #1

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Critics of scientific realism ask how the inner perception of mental images actually occurs. This is sometimes called the "homunculus problem" (see also the mind's eye). The problem is similar to asking how the images you see on a computer screen exist in the memory of the computer. To scientific materialism, mental images and the perception of them must be brain-states. According to critics, scientific realists cannot explain where the images and their perceiver exist in the brain. To use the analogy of the computer screen, these critics argue that cognitive science and psychology have been unsuccessful in identifying either the component in the brain (i.e., "hardware") or the mental processes that store these images (i.e. "software").
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image

I presented this argument a few months ago on this forum. I will play more of an information-seeking role here because I was left unsatisfied in the last thread. So again, I pose this challenge to materialists to use empirically-verifiable evidence to explain how or why mental images are physical when we DO NOT perceive them with our senses (hallucinations, dreams, etc).

Here's an easier way to put it:
1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

2. Since perception involves our senses, then how am I able to perceive mental images without my senses?

I want scientifically verifiable peer-reviewed evidence-based answers to my questions. If you don't know, then just admit it. Don't simply tell me that scientists will figure it out - that's FAITH ... not scientific EVIDENCE.
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 169 times
Contact:

Re: Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #111

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Clownboat wrote: Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:39 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 12:40 am That's actually a big strawman version of my view. The precise reason I claim that Pam's awareness occurred independent of the brain and senses is because of the evidence, which is in the form of independent corroboration and her ears and eyes being closed off from the external environment via anesthesia, tape, and ear buds. That basically means that she didn't use her senses to become aware of the event, which would then rule out her brain because the brain did not receive information from her senses. With me, it's always been about the evidence.
Let's test this last part shall we? Please supply evidence that consciousness is independent from our brains.
I've provided the evidence.

At this point, it's more reasonable for me to request that you stop ignoring the evidence or explain why my point isn't evidence. Explain that in light of my objections to your explanations.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15266
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #112

Post by William »

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #107]
Why not opt for a conclusion like the latter that fits the evidence just as well AND leaves room for us to find answers in more areas, including William's view?
There is no doubt in my mind the a human consciousness is an emergent property of a human brain. There is also no doubt in my mind that human brains are emergent from a biological process which is also conscious.

Furthermore there is no doubt in my mind that the conscious biological process is able to save what each human brain has birthed...that being, the human personality which grew from out of that process and this, by way of explaining all reports of all the strange happenings humans experience and have done so throughout human existence.

It is one thing to think the human personality (ie consciousness) emerged through brain activity and another thing completely to claim that the brain is therefore responsible for all the experiences each human consciousness experiences.

Brain worship to that degree is jumping step to a "not necessarily so" conclusion and is best avoided believing in. Keep it in mind by all means, but let's not make that a gatekeeper.
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10042
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1231 times
Been thanked: 1621 times

Re: Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #113

Post by Clownboat »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Jul 01, 2025 6:44 pm
Clownboat wrote: Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:39 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 12:40 am That's actually a big strawman version of my view. The precise reason I claim that Pam's awareness occurred independent of the brain and senses is because of the evidence, which is in the form of independent corroboration and her ears and eyes being closed off from the external environment via anesthesia, tape, and ear buds. That basically means that she didn't use her senses to become aware of the event, which would then rule out her brain because the brain did not receive information from her senses. With me, it's always been about the evidence.
Let's test this last part shall we? Please supply evidence that consciousness is independent from our brains.
I've provided the evidence.

At this point, it's more reasonable for me to request that you stop ignoring the evidence or explain why my point isn't evidence. Explain that in light of my objections to your explanations.
Your evidence has been addressed many times now as being unexplained and anecdotal. Do not pretend that I have ignored your evidence when I have not, as that is dishonest.
What you have supplied is found wanting, but not ignored for the reasons I have laid out for you already.

That you seem to have nothing more to offer is acknowledged. Therefore I will continue to observe that brains seem sufficient enough to explain how animals become aware of their surroundings while I await further observations that might suggest something else.

AgnosticBoy, is anecdotal evidence good evidence?
Is anecdotal evidence generally considered to be unreliable?
Am I justified to question your unexplained anecdotal claims from Pam?
Is questioning the validity of something the same as ignoring that thing?

For those reading. The things that were left unadressed:
Do you acknowledge that consciousness could possibly be an emergent property of a functioning brain?

When I become conscious of a smell, why must something independent of my brain be involved? What is taking place from start to finish of a smell is well understood after all.
When my dog becomes aware of a smell, why must something independent of her brain be involved?
When a snake becomes aware of a smell, why must something independent of its brain be involved?


Again, consider this analogy:
Flying saucers are real, because of Bob Lazar. Surely you agree that more is needed and that is what I'm asking for.


And it's claimed that I'm ignoring! :shock:
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10042
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1231 times
Been thanked: 1621 times

Re: Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #114

Post by Clownboat »

William wrote: Tue Jul 01, 2025 6:55 pm There is no doubt in my mind the a human consciousness is an emergent property of a human brain. There is also no doubt in my mind that human brains are emergent from a biological process which is also conscious.
You are telling us how you feel and that is not interesting.
Furthermore there is no doubt in my mind that the conscious biological process is able to save what each human brain has birthed...that being, the human personality which grew from out of that process and this, by way of explaining all reports of all the strange happenings humans experience and have done so throughout human existence.
You are telling us how you feel and that is not interesting.
It is one thing to think the human personality (ie consciousness) emerged through brain activity and another thing completely to claim that the brain is therefore responsible for all the experiences each human consciousness experiences.
I acknowledge that you are falsely equating human personality with consciousness.
con·scious·ness
/ˈkänSHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

You are also wrong that I claim that the brain is therefore responsible for all experiences as my actual claim is to observe that a functioning brain seems to be all that is necessary which leave open other possibilities.
So much wrongness in just one post sadly, but only you can correct such things.
Brain worship to that degree is jumping step to a "not necessarily so" conclusion and is best avoided believing in. Keep it in mind by all means, but let's not make that a gatekeeper.
What is brain worship and why are you bringing up such a thing? Is this just an irrelevant distraction?

Your reply seems very emotional (your feelings and you being wrong about what my actual claim is) IMO. Is that because you need consciousness to be external for your desired simulation theory to be valid and the idea that consciousness could emerge from our brains threatens this idea? Please note that I don't require consciousness to be internal nor external for any belief I'm trying to maintain and I actually would like for our consciousness to be external which makes the 'brain worship' claim very odd to me.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 169 times
Contact:

Re: Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #115

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Clownboat wrote: Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:00 pm Your evidence has been addressed many times now as being unexplained and anecdotal.
Nothing in your long post addresses my counter points.

Here's how the debate has gone...
I gave evidence. You then gave alternative explanation. I then gave rebuttals to your explanation.

Clownboat then repeats the same explanation/points while not addressing my rebuttals. i'll take your repeated actions of trying to leave the conversation and ignore evidence to be evidence of you not debating nor dealing with the facts.

If any other long standing member here (I want to avoid trolls) wants to have a good faith debate or discussion on any of my views on this thread, then feel free to DM me or respond in this thread. I appreciate the contributions from William, Divine Insight, DrNOGods and a few others.

My views:
- consciousness is nonphysical
- The brain is just one medium for consciousness as opposed to being the sole place for consciousness, OR there's no logic and evidence to justify the latter.
- Consciousness can function independent of the brain
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15266
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #116

Post by William »

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #115]
If any other long standing member here (I want to avoid trolls) wants to have a good faith debate or discussion on any of my views on this thread, then feel free to DM me or respond in this thread.
What interests me is how some argue that a brain is necessary for consciousness to emerge and will accept that (re the example I gave earlier in this thread) the Leafcutter Ant has consciousness because it has a brain but reject that the tree it cuts leaves from or the mycelium it feeds the leaves to, are not conscious - and why? Because these do not have brains.

Yet clearly, both the tree and the mycelium are aware of their environment, and the argument that consciousness is required for anything to be aware of the environment flies in the face of the claim that only things with brains have consciousness.

Those who make such claims, at the very least, should show what the brain of trees and mycelium is/could be so we have clear indication of what they mean by a "brain".
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 169 times
Contact:

Re: Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #117

Post by AgnosticBoy »

William wrote: Thu Jul 03, 2025 1:28 pm [Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #115]
If any other long standing member here (I want to avoid trolls) wants to have a good faith debate or discussion on any of my views on this thread, then feel free to DM me or respond in this thread.
What interests me is how some argue that a brain is necessary for consciousness to emerge and will accept that (re the example I gave earlier in this thread) the Leafcutter Ant has consciousness because it has a brain but reject that the tree it cuts leaves from or the mycelium it feeds the leaves to, are not conscious - and why? Because these do not have brains.

Yet clearly, both the tree and the mycelium are aware of their environment, and the argument that consciousness is required for anything to be aware of the environment flies in the face of the claim that only things with brains have consciousness.

Those who make such claims, at the very least, should show what the brain of trees and mycelium is/could be so we have clear indication of what they mean by a "brain".
I think a lot of how consciousness works in other "mediums" can be extrapolated from how consciousness works in animals, humans and non-humans alike. The problem is that oftentimes we extrapolate from just one type of consciousness, usually the fully functioning type. In my view, the most basic form of consciousness is just awareness and that may be all that is present in plants and inanimate objects. Plants and other objects do need to have thoughts and feelings nor do they have to have a way to respond or whose to say that they have to respond in the form of human behavior? These are just all assumptions.

I think of the person in a vegetative state, who is probably just as functional as a rock, which is to say they can do little to nothing. Because of that, doctors used to presume that these patients were unconscious. Are we making the same mistake in presuming that trees are unconscious? I'd like to know what is required just to have awareness, a subjective sense of being (forget thoughts, forget human behavior, etc).

What about your view that everything has intelligence or lives in an intelligent Universe? Does that in some sense mean that everything has a brain or is connected to one?
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15266
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #118

Post by William »

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #117]
What about your view that everything has intelligence or lives in an intelligent Universe? Does that in some sense mean that everything has a brain or is connected to one?
The brain acts as a medium - so it could be argued that the universe itself may be the medium for an overall consciousness (universal) and this is mirrored all the way down through forms (objects) and the objects become "living" on account of that process.

This would mean that absolutely every consciousness regardless of form and living function, is specifically that overall universal consciousness, acting out as it were - through functioning forms and I find it revealing that all consciousness is related in that way.

This in turn would mean it would be difficult to think in terms of "other" or "separate" and "outside" of who we are...

Does this mean that the universal consciousness requires a brain in order to be conscious? I don't think so, but rather objects are a means to experience things - even if that means "losing" oneself in temporal realities specifically created for that purpose...and the deeper one goes (such as being a human on a planet) the more lost to that source one becomes - yet not necessarily unable to "find" oneself in the thick of it all...just distracted enough perhaps not even to bother...
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10042
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1231 times
Been thanked: 1621 times

Re: Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #119

Post by Clownboat »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Jul 02, 2025 2:09 pm Nothing in your long post addresses my counter points.
Wrong and demonstrably so:
Copy/paste to save time and sanity:
"Your evidence has been addressed many times now as being unexplained and anecdotal. Do not pretend that I have ignored your evidence when I have not, as that is dishonest.
What you have supplied is found wanting, but not ignored for the reasons I have laid out for you already."

i'll take your repeated actions of trying to leave the conversation and ignore evidence to be evidence of you not debating nor dealing with the facts.
Copy/paste to save time and sanity:
"Your evidence has been addressed many times now as being unexplained and anecdotal. Do not pretend that I have ignored your evidence when I have not, as that is dishonest.
What you have supplied is found wanting, but not ignored for the reasons I have laid out for you already."

If any other long standing member here (I want to avoid trolls) wants to have a good faith debate or discussion on any of my views on this thread, then feel free to DM me or respond in this thread. I appreciate the contributions from William, Divine Insight, DrNOGods and a few others.
Divine Insight and DrNOGods haven't commented in this thread since March of 2018 so why not address my critiques?

Do you acknowledge that consciousness could possibly be an emergent property of a functioning brain?

When I become conscious of a smell, why must something independent of my brain be involved? What is taking place from start to finish of a smell is well understood after all.
When my dog becomes aware of a smell, why must something independent of her brain be involved?
When a snake becomes aware of a smell, why must something independent of its brain be involved?

Again, consider this analogy:
Flying saucers are real, because of Bob Lazar. Surely you agree that more is needed and that is what I'm asking for.

Is anecdotal evidence good evidence?

My views:
- consciousness is nonphysical
- The brain is just one medium for consciousness as opposed to being the sole place for consciousness, OR there's no logic and evidence to justify the latter.
- Consciousness can function independent of the brain
I acknowledge that you hold these views. You likely hold a lot more views. Thank you for not listing all the views you hold. :oops:
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 169 times
Contact:

Re: Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

Post #120

Post by AgnosticBoy »

x
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Post Reply