Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

[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.

[William]

There is really no reason to become despondent about the fact that materialism combined with religion make up the largest number of collective humanity which, for their own reasons, cannot accept panpsychism as a viable alternative to their current mindsets.

Of what use is it to the type of world built on either the idea that human brains are the center of consciousness in which all else revolves around - or that human beings will all die and will only be resurrected according to some gods will to do so?

Meantime, it is business as usual, and for that matter, a world view of panpsychism offers nothing of value re that.

Can the world change? It is possible, of course.

Will the world change?

That - perhaps - depends on the incentive...

[Clownboat]

1. There is no verifiable theory that explains how and why consciousness emerges from the brain.

Please don't pretend that there are no theories though.
I find this complaint odd though, because when there are no theories, we are forced to hypothesizes. Currently, you seem to hypothesis some external 'thing' being involved.

Please contrast that with this:
(Observation) From the worm to the human, they become aware/conscious of their surroundings. The worm cannot and does not ask, 'who' is it that is being conscious. Humans can and do and therefore (theory) may be able to trick themselves into believing there is more (the 'who') that makes them aware of their surroundings when such a thing may not be required.

As far as hypothesizes go, one is better because it alludes to a possible mechanism that perhaps some day we can test against. The other suggests a 'thing' and this 'thing' is not internal, but is external. I could suggest external fairies are the source and that would be a better explanation than some 'thing' that just has to be external. Do you not agree?

I currently find your hypothesis as being wanting (still prefer it to be correct, but our feelings don't matter). Please criticize mine so I can see if I should amend it.