I think though I am not

[Ivan Seeking]

Every now and then I run across this idea that the human mind may not work in such a way that there is a single I. In fact, one day I caught a noted neuroscientist saying that there is no I, instead we only percieve the illusion of an I that results from an ensemble of separate minds working together.

This has always bothered me since it seems to ignore the question: Who is being fooled?

 

[PIT2]

I think Daniel Dennett also thinks this is true, and on top of that he seems to believe that once the "I" is gone, then consciousness is gone aswell. Actually, he thinks that consciousness is an illusion in the first place, based on misunderstandings. It just looks like we are conscious, when in fact we arent. And u end up with the same thing u said, if it just looks this way, then who is looking?

Susan Blackmore also believes this is the case, as u can read here:

Admitting that it’s all an illusion does not solve the problem of consciousness but changes it completely. Instead of asking how neural impulses turn into conscious experiences, we must ask how the grand illusion gets constructed. This will prove no easy task, but unlike solving the Hard Problem it may at least be possible.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/ns02.htm

Personally it sounds to me like "we can't explain it, so let's deny it exists".

Maybe the "I-human" feeling is artificial, but once that is gone, it could be that there is a feeling of "I-something else" (like the "I-universe" feeling that so many people experience).

 

[selfAdjoint]

Iv"an, nobody is being fooled. The same people who insist that our physical encounter with reality is very different from our memory of it ( which is what fuels out "conscious understanding" of it, in their view), are firm that there is no homonculus, no "central understander". It's all distributed processing.

If you accept that what our brains use to construct our stream of consciousness is our short term memory, then you have to at least consider the possibility that that memory store may have been fiddled with before our physical consciousness-constructing processes had access to it.

 

[jimmie]

nobody is being fooled.

I do not agree.

If you accept that what our brains use to construct our stream of consciousness is our short term memory, then you have to at least consider the possibility that that memory store may have been fiddled with before our physical consciousness-constructing processes had access to it.

I agree.

Perhaps, to fully understand what I am, i needed to consider the possibility that many things were "fiddled with" prior to having the ability/physical body to make use from the access of short-term memory of anything.

"i" was not able to fiddle with anything.

i was fooled by i usually because i was thinking of that which i was not, and I saw it all go down.

I have observed and understand that I am prior to flesh.

 

[loseyourname]

Read http://med.fsu.edu/gsm/hp/program/section8/8ch15/s8c15_22.htm from the FSU medical school. In cases such as these patients with hemispheric separation, each half of the brain has its own "self" that is cut off from the other, as if two people occupied the same head. Although we'll likely privilege the half of the brain responsible for creating verbal responses as being the true "I," there really is no good reason I can think of to do so.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the unity of subjective experience in normally functioning humans is a complete illusion, but it certainly is not a necessary aspect of human existence. The self you have now is fully contingent, and could be split at least in two, possibly moreso.

 

[-Job-]

Maybe the question is, if you wanted to make something be conscious, how would you go about it? Like, write a computer program that thinks it is conscious. I think what i would do is start by having some simple data input to the program. The program reads this data input, but it also must be aware that it is reading the data input. That seems to be fundamental. So, interestingly, if you think about it, the program doesn't only have data as input, it also receives itself as input, because it must be aware of itself reading the data input. It sounds like a recursive function.
If i had to bet i'd say one of the things that leads to consciousness is the fact that our outputs are also our inputs. We can hear our own words and see our own movements, but also, most importantly, we can read our own thoughts.
So our minds start with some data, modify it into output, then read it as input along with some other data, and this process continues.
Say the initial data is data0, then, if our mind is represented by function Mind(data), then:
data1 = Mind(data0) + externalData0
data2 = Mind(data1) + externalData1
data3 = Mind(data2) + externalData2

Which can be rewritten as:
Mind(Mind(Mind(Mind(Mind(data0, externalData0)), externalData1), externalData2)

So it would be recursive function, which is basically a loop. This seems reasonable because in my experience at least, consciousness seems to be the product of a loop. It's like what you get when you place two mirrors facing each other, except in this case, it's more like a mirror facing itself.
If you want a picture showing recursion, then take a look at this one:
http://www.teezeh.info/wp-content/recursive.jpg
Or this animation, kind of creepy:
http://www.mantasoft.co.uk/_stuff/Recursive.htm
Notice that this establishes a timeline. Our perception of time could be based on the recursive nature of consciousness.
It's also interesting to note that, assuming that the function Mind() stays the same, the only thing that determine the next output is the previous input and the current external input. What this means is that there must be some versions of the function Mind() that would be able to "intentionally" produce certain outputs, effectively telling the function where to go next (read: tell itself what to do).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Iv"an, nobody is being fooled.

Then who is it that has been fooled into starting this thread? :uhh: Somewhere along the line there is a guy who seems to think he - an I - is here. It seems a bit as if you have moved the observer a layer deeper. Also, I am thinking more of a silent observer rather than the central understander. "Understanding" seems a little strong as it implies another level of thought to me. After all, I can certainly observe a mathematical proof on a chalk board but not understand it.

But no matter who we may be at any moment - referencing LYN's post here as well -we are still aware that we exist in the moment. For example, even before I am able to perceive what I see, I am aware that I see without perception; and, the observer even has to wait for the observation to make sense in some cases. So it is as if someone - the observer - waits for the different minds to agree.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This does seem to strike at the heart of the the question of how a computer can be made self aware. Of course, how do we know that they're not?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Then who is it that has been fooled into starting this thread? :uhh: Somewhere along the line there is a guy who seems to think he - an I - is here. It seems a bit as if you have moved the observer a layer deeper. Also, I am thinking more of a silent observer rather than the central understander. "Understanding" seems a little strong as it implies another level of thought to me. After all, I can certainly observe a mathematical proof on a chalk board but not understand it.

But no matter who we may be at any moment - referencing LYN's post here as well -we are still aware that we exist in the moment. For example, even before I am able to perceive what I see, I am aware that I see without perception; and, the observer even has to wait for the observation to make sense in some cases. So it is as if someone - the observer - waits for the different minds to agree.

IMO, you are speaking as most people would who have a sense of what they are. It is the mechanists who want to figure out some way to make us doubt our humanity.

Let's say you become infatuated with math, so much so that you ignore every other facet of your being. If someone asks you what you most fundamentally are, you might answer you are a calculating device because that's all you do.

Those, like Dennett, who claim we are nothing more than processing, are, in my opinion, simply reflecting both what they are obsessed with and what they are ignoring about themselves.

If one chooses, one can focus on the "singular" aspect and become quite familiar with it. After enough dedication to experiencing that, one becomes certain there really is a singular "I." Those who spend no time looking at that part of themselves may claim it is an illusion, but they don't really know since they choose to give top priority to the mechanistic aspect of their being.

Regarding brain effects, if we are housed in and and dependent on the brain while occupying biology (which we clearly are), then if the brain is segmented, or damaged, or split, then we will follow along to one degree or another. But do we ever fully lose that part which watches? I don't think so (I never have), and as long as that "observer" exists then I say we remain consciousness no matter how much our physical condition taxes and confuses us.

 

[pierre45]

don't know if this is relevant or not..

I have taken massive amounts of hallucinegens...and my "I" has always stuck around to observe things. It seems the inputs are routed through various segments before you can observe them, and under hallucinegen they take a different route, or to put another way the route changes in some way...the senses hit the observer more directly without "I" having much knowledge about what they are or mean, but they always hit the observer. Don't know whether the change or effect actually is in the observers understanding or in the processing units output, but the form seems to remain intact.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I have taken massive amounts of hallucinegens...and my "I" has always stuck around to observe things. It seems the inputs are routed through various segments before you can observe them, and under hallucinegen they take a different route, or to put another way the route changes in some way...the senses hit the observer more directly without "I" having much knowledge about what they are or mean, but they always hit the observer. Don't know whether the change or effect actually is in the observers understanding or in the processing units output, but the form seems to remain intact.

Same here.

I was thinking recently of a thought experiment where one has to imagine a way to eliminate one's own observing self. Can anyone posting here report they have managed to get rid of themselves (as an observer)? I remember being really sad or freaked about things when I was younger and trying my damnest to get rid of my aware self with drugs, booze, etc. I never achieved it, not once.

I believe those who can't explain the observer have to try incredibly hard to ignore it and/or rationalize it away. What's funny to me is that when I am talking to someone trying to do that, I can still see the observer in them! So I end up convinced I know them better than they know themselves.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Les, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll try. I have a method I use. I call it quantum universal extrospection. I try and see the universe just happening as it happens; everything is natural. I also made a formula for this. There is no conceptualization of consistencies without expectation, all things are simply natural. It's the closest thing I could think of to what you are asking about. Close your eyes and take yourself far away, so that all you can see are the stars and galaxies... from an above view. Be on top of the whole universe looking down. Maybe I just wrote a whole post that has nothing to do with what you're saying. If so, could you explain more? I'm very interested in what you are trying to get at the bottom of, and I believe I can help you achieve this. I Did my best to help! :) Fill me in on some more suggestions and specifications. I want to get a better idea about what it is you are speaking of.

 

[-Job-]

I believe the "i" goes away when you go to sleep, but i can't prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. But consider the following: the "i" can't possibly be continuous if it is produced by neural activity. The reason for this is that, even though there are neurons firing at all times, there is an interval of time small enough such that no neuron fires in that interval. What happens in that interval? Are we aware? Wouldn't the "i" then be non-constant, but interrupted every so often? Would we notice the interruptions though? Why would we? I could be coming and going without noticing it. If I'm not around when i go away then i won't notice it and the result is a constant "i".

 

[clouded.perception]

You all seem to be talking about an "observer".
You seem (though I may have this wrong) to be viewing the "observer" as independent, or at least as an independent quality of, the brain.

The brain is the center of the nervous system for most higher-order animals, like mammals. (Some animals don't have brains -- many insects, or even starfish). The nervous system's job is to collect data from the outside world so that the organism knows what to do in order to survive. The nervous system is built to observe. That's what our brain is -- a collector of data. An "observer".

Obviously, the advantages of having a center to the nervous system (brain) include the ability to cross-reference data more efficiently. Combining current sensory data with memorised recorded data and instinct, we are able to make reasoned predictions and decisions in order to decide the best way to get what we need to survive. By cross-referencing data, we can identify patterns, thus comprehending the idea in question (we can think about and predict the behaviour of the idea in question confidently, thus we consider it understood).

We call the continual cross0referencing of data to identify new patterns "thought".

Now, my point: the ability to observe is the most basic function of the brain. The ability to reason is another important, and easily explained, survival function. Our brain is the "observer"; it is us. The assumption that there must be something mysterious about what we are (a collection of sensory data translated into memes that mean something relative to each other) is an illusion. The idea that "thought" exists in its own right is an illusion. Thought is simply the mind's chemical language.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Les, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll try. I have a method I use. I call it quantum universal extrospection. I try and see the universe just happening as it happens; everything is natural. I also made a formula for this. There is no conceptualization of consistencies without expectation, all things are simply natural. It's the closest thing I could think of to what you are asking about. Close your eyes and take yourself far away, so that all you can see are the stars and galaxies... from an above view. Be on top of the whole universe looking down. Maybe I just wrote a whole post that has nothing to do with what you're saying. If so, could you explain more? I'm very interested in what you are trying to get at the bottom of, and I believe I can help you achieve this. I Did my best to help! :) Fill me in on some more suggestions and specifications. I want to get a better idea about what it is you are speaking of.

We are talking about the idea that consciousness isn't just sensitive to information, but that there is something more central present which knows consciousness is sensing things; and, in fact, that is exactly what defines consciousness. This has been criticized by, among others, functionist thinkers who claim there is no "little man" (homunculous) observing what we feel and think, but rather the sense of "I" is an illusory fog that arises from the complex processing the brain does.

So I can't see why you say you eliminate your observing self in "quantum universal extrospection." Everything you said indicated a you was present. You say take "yourself" far away (i.e., who is aware of you being taken far away?), and "you" can see . . . " It seems you have created even more of an observer experience, not less of one.

I wouldn't want to eliminate that aspect of my self since the way I see it I would be unconscious.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I believe the "i" goes away when you go to sleep, but i can't prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.

Possibly, but to whatever degree the "I" disappears we would say the sleeper is UNconscious. So really the disappearing "I" in unconsciousness supports the observer concept.

But consider the following: the "i" can't possibly be continuous if it is produced by neural activity. The reason for this is that, even though there are neurons firing at all times, there is an interval of time small enough such that no neuron fires in that interval. What happens in that interval? Are we aware? Wouldn't the "i" then be non-constant, but interrupted every so often? Would we notice the interruptions though? Why would we? I could be coming and going without noticing it. If I'm not around when i go away then i won't notice it and the result is a constant "i".

I accept your logic. But the ultimate question (for physicalists and nonphysicalists) is whether or not consciousness actually is produced by neural activity. The question isn't easy to answer. Let's say you are speaking through a microphone, and its wiring fails to some extent so that only every other word makes it through. Does our observation of a faltering voice mean the speaker is inconstant or that the microphone is failing to communicate what the speaker says?

Simlarly, we don't know if the results of brain damage indicates the brain was creating consciousness, or if consciousness is still intact but merely unable to work through that portion of the brain.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You all seem to be talking about an "observer".
You seem (though I may have this wrong) to be viewing the "observer" as independent, or at least as an independent quality of, the brain.

Some may say so, but most would say the brain cannot be shown to produce an observer and therefore either the observer is an illusion or it is real but isn't a product of the brain.

The brain is the center of the nervous system for most higher-order animals, like mammals. (Some animals don't have brains -- many insects, or even starfish). The nervous system's job is to collect data from the outside world so that the organism knows what to do in order to survive.

All true.

The nervous system is built to observe. That's what our brain is -- a collector of data. An "observer".

Oops, you slipped up. Collection of data is one thing, and then having something else observe that collecting process is another. You are simply describing the physical ability to sense or detect. As of now, there is no known way to prove what or who is aware of what is sensed. That is why this subject is controversial.

Obviously, the advantages of having a center to the nervous system (brain) include the ability to cross-reference data more efficiently. Combining current sensory data with memorised recorded data and instinct, we are able to make reasoned predictions and decisions in order to decide the best way to get what we need to survive. By cross-referencing data, we can identify patterns, thus comprehending the idea in question (we can think about and predict the behaviour of the idea in question confidently, thus we consider it understood).

We call the continual cross0referencing of data to identify new patterns "thought".

Well, computing (thinking) is also something different than the thinker. You are still one step away from accounting for the "self" of consciousness.

Now, my point: the ability to observe is the most basic function of the brain. The ability to reason is another important, and easily explained, survival function. Our brain is the "observer"; it is us.

Are you familiar with the zombie analogy? We don't need an observer aspect of consciousness to function in ways beneficial to survival. We could go through the motions, like a zombie, and never need to know we did, or have a sense of self. So why is there a self? Of course, one explain the observer aspect away by insisting it's an illusion.

 

[PIT2]

Isnt this "its an illusion" idea also what emergence ("the brain produces consciousness") boils down to? I think i read somewhere that all known cases of emergence are actually psychological. This was written by Chalmers:

The notion of reduction is intimately tied to the ease of understanding one level in terms of another. Emergent properties are usually properties that are more easily understood in their own right than in terms of properties at a lower level. This suggests an important observation: Emergence is a psychological property. It is not a metaphysical absolute. Properties are classed as "emergent" based at least in part on (1) the interestingness to a given observer of the high-level property at hand; and (2) the difficulty of an observer's deducing the high-level property from low-level properties.
http://consc.net/notes/emergence.html

But if consciousness is a psychological emergence, it would need a psyche(observer) to create itself.

Btw, is it true that all known emergence is actually psychological?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Isnt this "its an illusion" idea also what emergence ("the brain produces consciousness") boils down to? I think i read somewhere that all known cases of emergence are actually psychological. This was written by Chalmers . . . But if consciousness is a psychological emergence, it would need a psyche(observer) to create itself.

It seems that Chalmers is referring to a human observer of any emergent phenomenon, and that it is psychological in the respect that what becomes termed "emergent" depends on that human observer becoming interested in the phenomenon (i.e., human "interestedness" is psychological). I don't think he is saying the emergent property itself is necessarily psychological.

But IMO the issue of emergence is crucial to physicalist theory. The quality of current examples of physical emergence reminds me of the quality of examples of complexity theory . . . all are trivial. In fact, every high level example of living functionality is built on a theoretical sand foundation. How did organs (and therefore organisms) evolve? Accidental genetic change did it. Can we observe "accidents" today operating so fortunately. Not even close. How did the first life get started? Chemistry self-organized. Can we observe any such example of chemistry performing at that level of self-organization. Not even close. How did consciousness come about? It emerges from neural processing. Can we observe that quality of emergence in any physical setting? Not even close. It might be that physicalness can do all that physicalist believers think, but right now the foundation of their theory is based just as much on blind faith as creationist theory.

It might be that physicalness cannot explain everything, and it might be that science and/or rationalist efforts to understand consciousness are inadequate for the job. It might be that one has to learn to directly experience the "essence" of one's own consciousness to gain insight into it. Just because researchers choose not to learn that skill doesn't mean it isn't required or they can circumvent it. Right now it seems to me brain researchers are theorizing without enough experience of what they, as consciousness, actually are in essence. If empiricism is experienced-based research, I don't see how one can proceed without the ability to directly experience what it is one is researching.

 

[PIT2]

It seems that Chalmers is referring to a human observer of any emergent phenomenon, and that it is psychological in the respect that what becomes termed "emergent" depends on that human observer becoming interested in the phenomenon (i.e., human "interestedness" is psychological). I don't think he is saying the emergent property itself is necessarily psychological.

Isnt he saying that it is humans who call a property emergent, depending on how well they understand how it arises from the fundamental properties?

For instance u have a car that u can drive. A human may think "driving" is an emergent property, but in reality "driving" is nothing more than motion, which is a fundamental property of matter. So while "motion" is a real property, "driving" was just a label to describe this property in a particular arrangement. This means that "driving" (the label) was dependent on the human observer.

But how can this be with consciousness? It can't be dependant on an observer, since it is an observer itself. Unless of course observing is also a fundamental property of everything.

But IMO the issue of emergence is crucial to physicalist theory. The quality of current examples of physical emergence reminds me of the quality of examples of complexity theory . . . all are trivial. In fact, every high level example of living functionality is built on a theoretical sand foundation. How did organs (and therefore organisms) evolve? Accidental genetic change did it. Can we observe "accidents" today operating so fortunately. Not even close. How did the first life get started? Chemistry self-organized. Can we observe any such example of chemistry performing at that level of self-organization. Not even close. How did consciousness come about? It emerges from neural processing. Can we observe that quality of emergence in any physical setting? Not even close. It might be that physicalness can do all that physicalist believers think, but right now the foundation of their theory is based just as much on blind faith as creationist theory.

I agree and i think over time physicalism/materialism will go extinct and be replacd with panpsychism/liberal naturalism

 

[pierre45]

But how can this be with consciousness? It can't be dependant on an observer, since it is an observer itself. Unless of course observing is also a fundamental property of everything.

I know nothing about this, but couldn't you argue that it is dependant on an observer, albeit a lower level one? That our lower level reptile brain is an observer of some sort, but not able to observe itself. And the ability to observe "ourselves" (that which became "I") emerged from that?

 

[PIT2]

I know nothing about this, but couldn't you argue that it is dependant on an observer, albeit a lower level one? That our lower level reptile brain is an observer of some sort, but not able to observe itself. And the ability to observe "ourselves" (that which became "I") emerged from that?

But then where did that lower level observer come from?

 

[pierre45]

(I don't know where anything came from!)

random organization, it was useful. But not an emergent property of that organization, a part of it.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

My Personal Belief

The universe is the creator. It created itself(the big bang), therefore it is also the creation. My theory is that the universe is conscious. The universe IS conscious, because we are a part of it, and WE are conscious. It gave birth to us, and as offspring attain characteristics from their father and mother, my theory goes, so did we. From our 'father' the universe, and our 'mother' nature(Nature evolves with us AND is from the universe as well[of course], but also gives us our characteristics as we evolve together). We are apart of the creator and the creation and we are also conscious. In being so, I now can understand the human evolution of perception. Okay, so before the solar system fully took form, we were all once a part of "star stuff"(the building blocks) There was no reference point since we were just floating about in space. We were neither here nor there. There was no perception of up and down, or right and left. As we evolved into organisms on the Earth, the 5 common senses such as; Hearing, Seeing, Feeling, Tasting, Smelling, began to take form. Now that we have evolved here on Earth we have a reference point to determine what is up, what is down, what is right and what is left. I'll write up more on this later, when I have more time to study and think about it. My theory is; since the eyes initially interpret vision upside down, and the brain must flip it right side up, this has to do with our evolution and how we came to be conscious and aware at the state that we function in today. I have to admit... I am quite stumped right now... I have seen a lot of answers, but none of them explain it as deep and as far as I'd like to go... I hope that helps a little bit in your trek for ridding yourself of I... which I think you cannot do since you exist inside of I; you the being, and I; the existence, or all that is. It's impossible, what you are asking for is to go outside of existence. Even in doing so, you are bringing a new realm of existence into existence, which now becomes another part of 'I'; you the being and observer, and 'I'; the existence and all that is. It's not an illusion nor a paradox. The truth is, is that you cannot rid yourself of I. So how can you get rid of the 'I', when the 'I' is all that is? Illusions are neither truths nor answers. The truth is, is that they don't exist, that is why they are called illusions. 'Illusion' is just another fancy concept of 'nothing'. I believe what you are in search of is a concept that cannot exist. If I helped any, you're welcome in advance. If not, I wish you luck in your journey. If you ever come to any conclusions, please let me know. :) Take care Les.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's sad. When this thread was on the Mind and Brain Sciences board it was a reasonable discussion of various models of consciousness. Then it was moved here to philosophy and it has just been a magnet for evrybody's private theory.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

What was the point of that comment? I don't want to start an argument, but seriously? What did that achieve here? I don't understand why people always have to come in and say negative comments? Can we ever just have a nice, civilized conversation with no one getting mad, sad, jealous or angry? If you're upset, you can move it back to Mind Brain Sciences so that it fits your needs? I don't know what to tell you. I thought it was going along just fine.

 

[PIT2]

What would happen to the 'I' when u connect two brains with each other?
Would it become a 'we'?

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Yeah, in a sense. Now you're going somewhere else though. Would the two brains control one body? If so, I believe what you'd find yourself with is a very powerful 'I' that would be capable of multitasking to an exponential degree. What do you think? Yet, don't we already have two brains? Or do you consider both sides just to be one? :P

 

[PIT2]

Yeah, in a sense. Now you're going somewhere else though. Would the two brains control one body? If so, I believe what you'd find yourself with is a very powerful 'I' that would be capable of multitasking to an exponential degree. What do you think? Yet, don't we already have two brains? Or do you consider both sides just to be one? :P

I think similarly(yet in the opposite way)to what happens in splitbrain patients, the 2 consciousnesses would become one. It would probably be a person with multiple personality disorder, where one personality gets control over the body at some times and the other at other times.
His memory would be messed up also, just imagine having lived two lifes at the same time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's sad. When this thread was on the Mind and Brain Sciences board it was a reasonable discussion of various models of consciousness. Then it was moved here to philosophy and it has just been a magnet for evrybody's private theory.

With that in mind: What is thought to make "conscious" decisions? Is this thought to be allocated to one specific area of the brain or is this a multilateral function? Again, to me it seems that we have an "I" polling various voters. We often see this idea parodied as having a devil on one shoulder, and an angel on the other. In fact, to take this idea to the obvious limit, one might ask, what part of the brain chooses between good and evil?

 

[Les Sleeth]

It's sad. When this thread was on the Mind and Brain Sciences board it was a reasonable discussion of various models of consciousness. Then it was moved here to philosophy and it has just been a magnet for evrybody's private theory.

Various PHYSICAL models. If you only allow physicalist theory, then when we are all being physicalist it is good; but if anyone doesn't want to limit themselves to physicalness, then it is not so good.

Let me be open-minded about this. Explain to me how you can claim objectivity SA if you have a physicalist filter in place when you evaluate? The place to question if science is the appropriate research tool for consciousness is right here in philosophy. What is it, can we not admit that science might not be able to evaluate everything that exists? And, if that is so, isn't it appropriate at a science forum to discuss the limitations of science?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Various PHYSICAL models. If you only allow physicalist theory, then when we are all being physicalist it is good; but if anyone doesn't want to limit themselves to physicalness, then it is not so good.

Let me be open-minded about this. Explain to me how you can claim objectivity SA if you have a physicalist filter in place when you evaluate? The place to question if science is the appropriate research tool for consciousness is right here in philosophy. What is it, can we not admit that science might not be able to evaluate everything that exists? And, if that is so, isn't it appropriate at a science forum to discuss the limitations of science?

I don't have any more of a filter in place than you do, Les. You assume that your experiences, which I firmly believe are real, are evidence for something about consciousness, the universe, and everything, and you won't seriously consider the opposite. You know there are what you call physicalist explanations for all these experiences. But you won't take that evidence seriously.

My filter is that evidence has to be sharable, not just its existence, but in principle the repetition of whatever experiment is concerned by the person requiring more or better evidence.

So I tried that experiment in meditation and as you predicted, got nowhere. And even if I devoted the twenty years to it that you thought might be necessary, there's no guarantee anything would happen; mysticism, as I refer to all this, doen't offer any guarantee. It's all about, some people can do it and others, going through the same motions, can't. Look at all those monk stories about the wise guru and the stupid chela.

So a thread where your standards of evidence prevail over "physicalist" ones is a thread open to everybody's pet notion. How can you rule out somebody else's interior insights when you regard your own as inviolable?

 

[loseyourname]

How did this become a thread about physicalist vs. non-physicalist models of consciousness? Heck, how did it become a thread about consciousness at all, at least in the general sense. We've had this discussion 8,000 times by now and this seemed to be a much more specific question. Is there a unitary "self" that is alone responsible for all conscious cognition? Or is it possible that what we experience as a single observer, a single decision-maker, a single speaker, are not necessarily unitary, but can rather be split under certain circumstances? Autophenomenology cannot even, in principle, help us to answer this question unless the practitioner of it has experienced a situation, such as the split-brain or some other form of lesion, that has been shown in medical settings to divide the self. I'm assuming that none of us has ever personally been in such a situation, so how could anything in our personal experience tell us about the possibility of this occurring?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't have any more of a filter in place than you do, Les. You assume that your experiences, which I firmly believe are real, are evidence for something about consciousness, the universe, and everything, and you won't seriously consider the opposite.

I give more weight to experience-based reports than theory. Doesn’t that place me in the realm of empiricism? And I take the “opposite” very seriously, which is why I challenge it. It doesn’t make sense!

You know there are what you call physicalist explanations for all these experiences. But you won't take that evidence seriously.

I am not sure why you say I won’t give due consideration to physicalism. If you review my posts, I have consistently rejected it on the basis of not making sense given the evidence.

And then there’s the problem that physicalist extrapolations from what evidence there is takes such unwarranted leaps between facts that a rational person has to protest. I don’t see how a thinker can make those kind of leaps unless they already believe in the theory. You can prove bias by collecting scientific objections to, say, creationist/ID leaps, and noticing physicalists demand a far more conservative standard for inference than they themselves abide by when expounding the probabilities of physicalism.

So what am I to conclude but that physicalists are reacting to religion’s communication tactics without proper regard for objectivity; that is, they are responding in ways they need to in order to keep religion from gaining a foothold with society and undermining science. It isn’t a negative thing to keep religion out of science, but that doesn’t excuse science exaggerations made to the public.

My filter is that evidence has to be sharable, not just its existence, but in principle the repetition of whatever experiment is concerned by the person requiring more or better evidence.

I agree with that standard, but you don’t just require evidence to be sharable and repeatable, you also require it to be externalizable. That requirement basically dismisses the 3000 years of evidence accumulated by inner researchers. What justifies that particular filter? Are we saying that unless one can externalize one’s love for someone, or one’s joy over a beautiful piece of music, or one’s desire to protect nature, etc. . . . it isn’t to be trusted? Why can’t the inner world have its rules, and the outer world have its rules?

So I tried that experiment in meditation and as you predicted, got nowhere. And even if I devoted the twenty years to it that you thought might be necessary, there's no guarantee anything would happen; mysticism, as I refer to all this, doesn't offer any guarantee. It's all about, some people can do it and others, going through the same motions, can't. Look at all those monk stories about the wise guru and the stupid chela.

If I tried studying physics for a couple of weeks, would you be impressed with my conclusions about it? If you devoted 20 years of your time and energy to practicing correctly (practicing incorrectly won’t do it), with true devotion (no different than how one must be truly devoted to anything one hopes to master), then I say it is virtually guaranteed that you will make progress. IMO, the monk/guru stories are more about dedication (or lack of) than anything else.

So a thread where your standards of evidence prevail over "physicalist" ones is a thread open to everybody's pet notion. How can you rule out somebody else's interior insights when you regard your own as inviolable?

I challenge you to show me criticizing physicalism on any other basis than its lack of evidence, and its exaggerations of the significance of the evidence they have. When one observes, for instance, a few amino acids self-organizing, and then extrapolates from that tiny bit of structure it’s the basis of self organization for the origin of life, that is logically ludicrous to every competent thinker except the physicalist believer. And if one judges things based on a priori beliefs and then calls it science to the public, the public’s trust in science has been betrayed by “believers” who feel it is more important to win the religion-science battle than it is to report absolutely, 100% accurately what the facts are, and what the significance of those facts are.

How can you rule out somebody else's interior insights when you regard your own as inviolable?

But I haven’t ruled out anything. I am open to whatever makes sense and is supported by evidence. It isn’t me who is maintaining strong opinions without proper evidence. The only strong opinion I have is that propositions be reported with the degree of certainty that evidence and logic support. And I don’t regard my insights as inviolable. I simply object to inner practitioners’ reports being dismissed out of hand by people who openly admit they won’t accept anything that can’t be externalized.

 

[Les Sleeth]

How did this become a thread about physicalist vs. non-physicalist models of consciousness? Heck, how did it become a thread about consciousness at all, at least in the general sense. We've had this discussion 8,000 times by now and this seemed to be a much more specific question.

It became about physicalist-nonphysicalist because those are the two main positions in this debate. It became about consciousness because the observer aspect is what many claim defines consciousness. We might have had this dialogue here many times, but new members or older members who never saw it before bring up the subject again. Should we tell people we aren’t going to discuss any subject we’ve previously talked about?

Philosophical discussions aren’t necessarily for the purpose of reaching conclusions; they help people learn to think critically. Should a topic be criticized simply because it’s been debated many times?