[xnor]

Quote:

I wonder if trying to understand the phenomenon of conscious events through materialistic explanations is like explaining a traffic jam by looking at the combustion engine.

No, why would that be? What else do you suggest? Magic?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

I wonder if trying to understand the phenomenon of conscious events through materialistic explanations is like explaining a traffic jam by looking at the combustion engine.

 
That is not a great metaphor as a traffic jam can be seen as part of a broader system and you would move out from the individual cars to the road system/interchanges/blockages and so on not deeper into the mechanics. Whereas human sensory processing is very definitely based on biology, chemistry and physics...
 
 
Quote:

No, why would that be? What else do you suggest? Magic?

 
Beat me to it !

 

[anetode]

Quote:

I wonder if trying to understand the phenomenon of conscious events through materialistic explanations is like explaining a traffic jam by looking at the combustion engine.

 
Say you have a traffic jam, a specific neurotransmitter imbalance (or rather an unusual level of neurotransmitter activity) in the human brain which correlates to the incidence of hearing disorders. Then say that you come up with a treatment on the hypothesis that chemicals which help regulate the metabolism of this neurotransmitter to normal levels would relieve hearing difficulties, a sort of installation of stop signs/lights to regulate the traffic jam. If the treatment is effective then that's evidence that the situation can be helped by adjusting the "flow of traffic". This does not grant you a complete description of events leading up to a traffic jam/hearing disorder, but it does indicate that road signs/neurotransmitter activity play an important role in the process.
 
To stretch the metaphor further, there are ongoing attempts to approach the problem by forming an overall map of all the pathways of the brain and neuroimaging displays the "traffic density" at any one point. Eventually you can start to draw conclusions as to the reasons behind these traffic patterns.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

 
That is not a great metaphor as a traffic jam can be seen as part of a broader system and you would move out from the individual cars to the road system/interchanges/blockages and so on not deeper into the mechanics. Whereas human sensory processing is very definitely based on biology, chemistry and physics...
 
 
 
Beat me to it !

All models and metaphors are necessarily abstractions (sure, mine may suck)... I see a traffic jam is an emergent property of a complex system; I don't see why the phenomena of perception can't be seen as an emergent property of a complex system. 

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

 
Say you have a traffic jam, a specific neurotransmitter imbalance (or rather an unusual level of neurotransmitter activity) in the human brain which correlates to the incidence of hearing disorders. Then say that you come up with a treatment on the hypothesis that chemicals which help regulate the metabolism of this neurotransmitter to normal levels would relieve hearing difficulties, a sort of installation of stop signs/lights to regulate the traffic jam. If the treatment is effective then that's evidence that the situation can be helped by adjusting the "flow of traffic". This does not grant you a complete description of events leading up to a traffic jam/hearing disorder, but it does indicate that road signs/neurotransmitter activity play an important role in the process.
 
To stretch the metaphor further, there are ongoing attempts to approach the problem by forming an overall map of all the pathways of the brain and neuroimaging displays the "traffic density" at any one point. Eventually you can start to draw conclusions as to the reasons behind these traffic patterns.

There is no denying that neurotransmitters and brain activity play an important role in the phenomena of perception. I think the huge focus on the chemical/electrical interaction of the brain may be an over reduction of the story. It seems that the push today is to reduce everything (including the phenomena of perception) to neurological events. 

 

[Pazz]

Not replying to anyone in particular, I was thinking how we came to perceive sound as it is. From the day we humans were born, or from the time we evolved to be able to hear things, our brain essentially regulated how responsive we are to certain sounds. The brain makes sure that typical sounds do not to overwhelm our sense of hearing, but it also to makes it so things are not completely inaudible, and this creates what we perceive as a volume for normal listening levels.
 
If the brain plays almost all the part in how sensitive we are to what are ears tell us, then might it be rational to think that if we were able to completely control neurological functions, we would also be able to increase, or decrease that normal listening level of volume? I imagine a sort of interface with a volume slider that controls how loud we hear things, perhaps a pot hooked up to our nervous system. Of course that's a pretty far off thought that only an uneducated person like myself may think of, but if something remotely like that were possible, it would mean that we would be able to listen to very quiet volumes from our headphones, while hearing that it is loud, thus protecting our ears in the long run. I also image that by that time, the level of scientific advancement will be high enough so that we wouldn't have to worry about damaging our ears (maybe a certain drug will restore our hair cells).
 
It's fun to imagine what could happen, but for now, fully understanding and manipulating our nervous system still seems a long way off.

 

[krismusic]

Biodynamic music system. I like it! When can I sign up for a fully integrated system so that I can get rid of all this clunky hardware?

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Not replying to anyone in particular, I was thinking how we came to perceive sound as it is. From the day we humans were born, or from the time we evolved to be able to hear things, our brain essentially regulated how responsive we are to certain sounds. 

What if we look at our evolved sense of perception (hearing being part of this) not as a passive processing but as an enacted bodily skill? If we don't separate our bodily selves from the world that we are (and have always been, regardless of what stage of evolution) not only part of but necessarily embedded in, would we think differently about our senses and experience of them?  What if our hearing isn't "in the head" but "out in the world." 
 
When we reach out and touch an object with our hands where is the touching? 

 

[xnor]

Quote:

What if we look at our evolved sense of perception (hearing being part of this) not as a passive processing but as an enacted bodily skill? If we don't separate our bodily selves from the world that we are (and have always been, regardless of what stage of evolution) not only part of but necessarily embedded in, would we think differently about our senses and experience of them?  What if our hearing isn't "in the head" but "out in the world."

I don't even begin to understand what you're saying. Care to elaborate?
 
 
Quote:

When we reach out and touch an object with our hands where is the touching?

Put simply, sensors under your skin detect the contact and send the information to your brain where the processing happens.
 
Like with the temperature of your CPU you need both a sensor and a processing unit. The heat is registered where the sensor(s) is/are. It's the same with touching stuff, no?

 

[proton007]

Quote:

What if we look at our evolved sense of perception (hearing being part of this) not as a passive processing but as an enacted bodily skill? If we don't separate our bodily selves from the world that we are (and have always been, regardless of what stage of evolution) not only part of but necessarily embedded in, would we think differently about our senses and experience of them?  What if our hearing isn't "in the head" but "out in the world." 
 
When we reach out and touch an object with our hands where is the touching? 

 
The good thing about scientific explanations is that they clearly state the limits of their understanding and provide reasonable evidence for whatever it is they know. 
 
You say "What if our hearing isn't in the head but out in the world". Well, what then? Can you prove it is the way you state it to be? If not, how is it any different if I say Sennheiser is the god of hearing? 
 
I know you're trying hard to be philosophical, but its not working.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

 
The good thing about scientific explanations is that they clearly state the limits of their understanding and provide reasonable evidence for whatever it is they know. 
 
You say "What if our hearing isn't in the head but out in the world". Well, what then? Can you prove it is the way you state it to be? If not, how is it any different if I say Sennheiser is the god of hearing? 
 
I know you're trying hard to be philosophical, but its not working.

Hi, 
 
I'm glad that you have a keen appreciation for the limits of scientific explanation and it's limits. I would imagine that this also includes a respect for the ability to self-correct and refine. 
I'm not sure that I can prove anything, I'm questioning the dominant way of thinking around our consciously experience (including hearing sound) as being "just" in our brain, split off from our body and the world.
Regarding my trying hard, at first I was a bit offended... and honestly a bit hurt . My initial reaction was to add to the negativity by directing a similar slight towards you.
But I think I agree with you. I was trying too hard. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

Hi, 
 
I'm glad that you have a keen appreciation for the limits of scientific explanation and it's limits. I would imagine that this also includes a respect for the ability to self-correct and refine. 
I'm not sure that I can prove anything, I'm questioning the dominant way of thinking around our consciously experience (including hearing sound) as being "just" in our brain, split off from our body and the world.
Regarding my trying hard, at first I was a bit offended... and honestly a bit hurt . My initial reaction was to add to the negativity by directing a similar slight towards you.
But I think I agree with you. I was trying too hard. Thanks for the feedback.

 
Apologies if I offended you. Our understanding of our senses is limited to our perception. A sensor sees much more than we can, but we can't appreciate things that we cannot perceive. Music is perception, and hence, I find it difficult to see if there's anything beyond that.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

I don't even begin to understand what you're saying. Care to elaborate?
 

 I see the dominant view of our conscious experience as highly influenced by a religious history. Back in the days when the gods/god were believed to be behind everything it was thought that there was a soul in us. When Rene Descartes came along he couldn't see how mater could explain experience. He saw a split, Res-cogito for consciousness and Res-extensa for body/mater. The focus on the brain/mind as the place where experience happens follows Descartes and the religious belief that the conscious self is caused by a "thing" in us. This thing "in us" is separated from our body and separated from the world. The idea that things just happen in our heads/brain is part of this view. The brain is a necessary part of the story but isn't the whole thing. 
 
 I'm suggesting that our conscious experience of the world may not be well explained by ignoring the body or our nature as animals actively engaged in a dynamic environment. 
 

 

[Pazz]

By the way, I was researching tinnitus and came across this article:
 
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/386922/A-gadget-switched-off-my-tinnitus
 
Apparently, they were able to somewhat successively cure tinnitus by having certain sounds played at certain times, so as to "disrupt the process."
 
Perhaps we'll be able to do some other cool things in the future with a similar process. Also, if they can reduce the sound produced by tinnitus, wouldn't it also be possible to increase it? I'm not talking about just playing loud noise until your ears get damaged, but actually messing with the way the ears and the brain communicate to each other. What I would additionally like to imply, is that if we determine what exact sounds need to be played, and at what times, we might be able to record tracks into our heads. In other words, what if we could hear a song without actually listening to it?

 

[Torr]

Love songs sound better to me when I'm in love and sad songs sound better when I'm down. Does that count?