The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.

[emjay]

It's been a while since I last read about blindsight, but the impression I always got was that the main debilitating factor about it was the lack of trust or confidence in the perception (if you can call it that). Ie normally we have these multiple channels, as it were, of consciousness integrating with and reinforcing each other, giving confidence in what we're perceiving, such as the position of an object. But in the case of blindsight where that sense, again, if you can call it that, doesn't integrate with any of the others, it's understandable there would be a feeling of lack of justification or confidence. Basically I guess what I'm saying is, the ability itself may (or may not) be solid, but without confidence in the perceptions, that seems to be where the real disability lies.

Hey emjay, interesting take. When you say "channels of consciousness", you don't mean consciousness itself in various modes (or whatever), but the underlying neurons/neural processes?

That can work for epiphenomenalism, actually.

Going back to the various recent posts (I've missed a lot since my last response), I see there's some conflation going on between perception and [phenomenal] experience, and therefore people from different sides are talking past one other. In the case of vision, visual perception is the interpretative output made by the relevant regions of the brain (and the CNS in general) as a result of processing the electrochemical "data" sent in through the optic nerve, and it is entirely reducible to the activities happening in the CNS (and the rest of the body). Visual experience is the extra layer that goes beyond perception and is observed intimately, privately, subjectively from a first-person perspective (by someone/something that feels like "you") and in which details of perception are vividly expressed in the form of colors, shapes, and such. This is the part that we are unable, as of yet, conceive of how to reduce to activities in the CNS. And more relevant to the current discussion, why we need such a thing at all, if the underlying neural correlates seem to suffice.

Hey there By 'channels' I simply meant, in your terminology, conscious experience... sight, sound etc at the highest level, and then kind of sub levels within each, such as say colour, or depth perception in vision. Though I'm sure what I was saying would apply equally to the underlying neural mechanisms, whatever they may be. The point being that in conscious experience, those channels... those components of consciousness feel integrated and reinforce each other.. and the more reinforced they are the more confidence you have in what these different channels of feedback are telling you. For instance if a ball was coming at you you might have, at the most basic, visual feedback combined with audio feedback, both telling you that it's say coming from the right hand side. If those two channels of feedback did not agree... ie there was some error in their integration... eg if your vision told you that it was coming from the right but your hearing suggested it was coming from the left, you'd understandably be confused and lack confidence in your perceptions. As an extension of that thinking, blindsight then is an experience that seems to lack any kind of reinforcing feedback, and thus I would think would be similar.

Thanks for the clarification on the differences between perception and experience. I used to be very interested in neuroscience etc, but not so much any more, so I'm pretty out of the loop these days... if I was ever in it; tbh I fear there was perhaps a bit of Dunning Kruger going on back then. Suffice to say I lack the confidence in it I used to have, and likewise for related philosophical questions or stances like epiphenomenalism; I really don't have a position on that any more... I just don't know.