<h2>Brief description of the problem</h2>
<p>Of course, the brain does not project the light it receives backwards or outwards.</p>
<p>However, my question is probably as silly as the title, so hopefully a silly title covers it up a bit.</p>
<p>My question is this:</p>
<ul>
<li>Why do we have a subjective perception of a chair but that really is just an electric pattern ?</li>
</ul>
<p>This is less important maybe, but what is then the illusion made of ? Why does it look like painted out there ?</p>
<p>I've tried to discuss this with many others, read books (Dennett, Hoffman, Maturana &amp; Varela, Schopenhauer, Marvin Minsky theories, long &amp; useless chats with LLMs, etc.); I'm myself a chemist with some formation in biology and so on.</p>
<p>So the part of the signal processing and role of the internal states in the brain isn't confusing to me nor the fact that other animals or even humans have a different representation/appearance, but does not very relevant either.</p>
<p>The part I don't understand is how the signal processing seemingly gives an image in my visual field.</p>
<h2>Some extra context</h2>
<p>I'd like to repeat the question (but answer it just once please, or it'd be humiliating):</p>
<ul>
<li>Why do we have a subjective perception of a chair but that really is just an electric pattern ?</li>
</ul>
<p>Clearly, one can split the problem, correlate parts to different processing, and maybe integrate them (for example, perspective may be somewhat separated from colour.)</p>
<p>But again, <em>that's not the question</em>. But I think the question is reasonable (am I wrong or nuts maybe ?)</p>
<p>Hoffman &amp; others the analogy of the GUI (graphical user interface) that hides away the actual processing and complexity done by say the CPU and especially the code that it's running which in turn reduces to electricity and gates.</p>
<p>In this analogy we interact with the GUI, as we interact with the real world which in turn is like a guy. So a chair isn't too different from a folder in my screen.</p>
<p>And yet, I am not convinced; the chair, in the sense that we are talking about like a projection it's not made out of light, but an illusion, so it seems to me that the analogy misses this (and probably other points.)</p>
<h2>Question</h2>
<p>I would deeply appreciate some hints here: am I not being able to abstract myself enough ? Is a confusion in terms of what an explanation should be ? Maybe the lack of some technical but introductory book ?</p>
<p>I've also read several scientists (biologists like Humberto Maturana that describes illusions and the physiology of it) but still, the chair doesn't quite follow from my mental models.</p>
<p>Any pointers and answers would be very much appreciated.</p>
<h2>EDIT</h2>
<p>I don't think this is a duplicate. The original question is looking for models of NCC; instead I'm interested in the last sentence from the quote in the <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/987/what-are-current-neuronal-explanations-and-models-of-consciousness">'duplicate reference'</a> (by Christof Koch):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I avoid taking any particular ideological position in the debate concerning the exact relationship between the NCC and conscious experience.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>None of the answers talk about this but only about NCC.</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-02T20:13:02.923Z
Related, possible duplicate: [What are current neuronal explanations and models of 'consciousness'?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/987/4622). If not a duplicate, you'll certainly find the answers there interesting and informative as to current thinking.
Jiminy Cricket.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-02T20:23:23.333Z
This is also called the "Hard Problem" of consciousness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness Another way to phrase this in a philosophical language is "why do qualia exist?" If you don't find the psychology/neuroscience-based discussion at the linked duplicate useful, then you are probably looking for Philosophy instead. Finally, another way you might think about it is: what would the alternative be? That is, what would it be like to perceive a chair in some other way and why would that, ultimately, be different?
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-03T06:38:36.487Z
@BryanKrause I'm aware, I know Chalmers. Yet many cogsci people tell me I'm an extreme idiot and it's been solved. I don't know if they understand the question. Could we chat 5' just to check we talk about the same problem ? Also, I've read say 'what it is like to be a bat?' but i have the same question for the bat, if that makes sense, so that is of no help.
Mah Neh
<perception>
But does it mean that the brain projects back the light that it receives?
Mah Neh
# But does it mean that the brain projects back the light that it receives?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-01-02)

## Brief description of the problem

Of course, the brain does not project the light it receives backwards or outwards.

However, my question is probably as silly as the title, so hopefully a silly title covers it up a bit.

My question is this:

* Why do we have a subjective perception of a chair but that really is just an electric pattern ?

This is less important maybe, but what is then the illusion made of ? Why does it look like painted out there ?

I've tried to discuss this with many others, read books (Dennett, Hoffman, Maturana & Varela, Schopenhauer, Marvin Minsky theories, long & useless chats with LLMs, etc.); I'm myself a chemist with some formation in biology and so on.

So the part of the signal processing and role of the internal states in the brain isn't confusing to me nor the fact that other animals or even humans have a different representation/appearance, but does not very relevant either.

The part I don't understand is how the signal processing seemingly gives an image in my visual field.

## Some extra context

I'd like to repeat the question (but answer it just once please, or it'd be humiliating):

* Why do we have a subjective perception of a chair but that really is just an electric pattern ?

Clearly, one can split the problem, correlate parts to different processing, and maybe integrate them (for example, perspective may be somewhat separated from colour.)

But again, *that's not the question*. But I think the question is reasonable (am I wrong or nuts maybe ?)

Hoffman & others the analogy of the GUI (graphical user interface) that hides away the actual processing and complexity done by say the CPU and especially the code that it's running which in turn reduces to electricity and gates.

In this analogy we interact with the GUI, as we interact with the real world which in turn is like a guy. So a chair isn't too different from a folder in my screen.

And yet, I am not convinced; the chair, in the sense that we are talking about like a projection it's not made out of light, but an illusion, so it seems to me that the analogy misses this (and probably other points.)

## Question

I would deeply appreciate some hints here: am I not being able to abstract myself enough ? Is a confusion in terms of what an explanation should be ? Maybe the lack of some technical but introductory book ?

I've also read several scientists (biologists like Humberto Maturana that describes illusions and the physiology of it) but still, the chair doesn't quite follow from my mental models.

Any pointers and answers would be very much appreciated.

## EDIT

I don't think this is a duplicate. The original question is looking for models of NCC; instead I'm interested in the last sentence from the quote in the ['duplicate reference'](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/987/what-are-current-neuronal-explanations-and-models-of-consciousness) (by Christof Koch):

> I avoid taking any particular ideological position in the debate concerning the exact relationship between the NCC and conscious experience."

**None of the answers talk about this but only about NCC.**

**Tags:** perception

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Related, possible duplicate: [What are current neuronal explanations and models of 'consciousness'?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/987/4622). If not a duplicate, you'll certainly find the answers there interesting and informative as to current thinking.  
> **username_2**: This is also called the "Hard Problem" of consciousness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness Another way to phrase this in a philosophical language is "why do qualia exist?" If you don't find the psychology/neuroscience-based discussion at the linked duplicate useful, then you are probably looking for Philosophy instead. Finally, another way you might think about it is: what would the alternative be? That is, what would it be like to perceive a chair in some other way and why would that, ultimately, be different?  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I'm aware, I know Chalmers. Yet many cogsci people tell me I'm an extreme idiot and it's been solved. I don't know if they understand the question. Could we chat 5' just to check we talk about the same problem ? Also, I've read say 'what it is like to be a bat?' but i have the same question for the bat, if that makes sense, so that is of no help.  

---

## 0 answers

