How could one explain oneself. . .                                  qualia-problem (english)


Philosophically, the term "qualia" is understood as meaning the subjective content of a mental state. And it is emphasized: This can only be generated by the consciousness and not by the brain.


It is true that not the brain, but the consciousness experiences.

But it is also correct that the mental state comes from the brain.


Everything that one perceives first reaches the brain as information, is transformed by the latter into a mental state according to its goals, and then eventually returns to consciousness. This then results in the subjective experience content.

That is, consciousness does not determine the view of the world, but the brain.

That's why people often react differently to the same situations.


The mental state is thus generated by information from the external and internal world in the brain. Depending on the relevance, then the consciousness is activated, the experienced.


This back and forth (brain> consciousness> brain> consciousness>) could be rocking more and more, so that you are completely in the midpoints, for example the music can rise.


It is ignored by many (and therefore leads to a false view): The world is not what we see it, but it is taken up in the same way as our goals (which are in the brain - more precisely, in the neuronsnets) they show us.


So, there are three reasons that the Qualia problem supporters cannot perceive because they have different goals (such as not allowing materialism for life and portraying man as a being that intellectually surpasses everything except God or similar higher powers): They mean


1. The (objective) world that they believe to see is the same for all


2. They are not aware of the central role of the objectives.


3. and they do not recognize the workings and effects of the neural networks (midpoints).


People who say that there is a qualia problem that cannot be solved with a materialistic concept also have serious problems of understanding and explanation: they speak of consciousness and mind, but they cannot explain both - and accordingly not understand.


Again, and again, the "argument" emerges that no subjective experience content can be explained from matter.


This is wrong: In the beginning of life organic substances were produced from inorganic substances (both are of course materialistic).


That this is possible has been proven in many different experiments.


This is how organic substances were created. These evolved and created new structures through evolution towards the goal of life. Especially the brain played an increasingly central role as a controller over time.


The difficulty lies in the fact that people do not want to admit that the consciousness is merely an amplification of the senses, in order to convey information to the corresponding neuron networks.


It is claimed, then, that consciousness is something quite extraordinary that one cannot explain with physical and chemical fundamentals.


To equate it with intensified perception of the senses, which are based on the fundamentals of physics and chemistry, is completely rejected, because it does not fit into the image that they have of consciousness in them.


Since ea. These philosophers are shaped by their midpoints "metaphysics", (keywords: immortal soul, mind-body problem, free will, God among others), they are blind about the fact that you are with the brain, with its physical and chemical fundamentals, intellectual subjective experience levels and the consciousness can explain.



The midpoints point "metaphysics" is the trap for their lack of understanding.



It is as before with the Copernican system: the midpoint; the geocentric view of the world - the earth is in the center of the universe - prevented the insight into the heliocentric world view: the earth is merely a planet that moves around the sunThe then leading intellectual class could distinguish itself from this central point; the Geocentric world view, do not solve it.


Only in the following generations did he go out.


The same is true of the current view of consciousness. This is not something that decides and directs the brain, but it is controlled by the brain, which activates the consciousness through the respective information, so that it experiences with intensified senses and provides more information.


When one speaks of mental abilities, one actually thinks - often without realizing it - the neural networks that have formed because of goals (they were previously unrecognizable, today computers can make them visible with the corresponding programs). The more effective and flexible the midpoints act with each other, the more mental abilities one has.


"Spirit" therefore because we cannot directly recognize the neural networks with our senses. They can be activated quickly and deactivated as quickly as a spirit that appears and disappears.



I would like to explain it once again in the course of the musician's life: The brain transmits sensory impressions, stimuli through perception. This activates stored midpoints of music in the brain. The brain qualifies the value of the sense impressions according to its aims. This becomes aware of people through feelings when the melody is an important goal for him to experience the resulting feelings. The activated consciousness sends this information about the music to the brain, more precisely: the corresponding midpoints (neuralnetworks), which thereby generate increased feelings in the consciousness. This can swell more and more, so that you are completely absorbed in these midpoints. Thus, all other neuralnetworks are more or less reduced in value.


To underpin the perception of music in the brain, there are musical and not so musical people. Where else, but in the brain, should this respective sensation or non-sensation be stored and take place genetically or epigenetically?



One more comment on the intentionality problem in philosophy (i.e. the ability of people to relate to something - such as real or just imagined objects, properties or factual behaviour): Assuming the consciousness and the ME am mental states (Ghosts, immaterial things that exist outside the brain, so to speak), then you also have a problem.


This is based on statements by past philosophers who knew very little about the functions of the brain. (If you do not know something, you often replace it with fantasies).


However, if one realistically assumes that these are states of the brain, then there is no such problem.


Intentionality can therefore easily be explained with the goals in the brain.




© It is permitted to use or reproduce this content without restriction on the condition of naming my website and without changing or shortening the texts. (Please inquire about exceptions via my imprint.)