• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Separation Real? Is Objectivity Real?

I Robot said:
The body is real. The brain is real. The perceptions are real. The notion that these perceptions happen to someone cannot be substantiated under materialism. The brain can construct stories that a someone exists and pay attention to these stories. But it cannot construct an actual psychological self.

If you just step back for a second and evaluate how likely it is that a brain has a personal self, you can see it. It's an utter fantasy. It's more ludicrous than believing in homeopathy, Bigfoot, a hollow earth or water memory. There is actually more evidence for water memory than for a psychological self!

A robot race, not the product of biological evolution, would laugh hysterically at the beliefs of so-called materialist humans here. They would fall about the floor collapsing in hysterics listening to so-called materialists desperately trying to justify the existence of a psychological self.

It's pure idiocy but the brain can't bear to give it up. As Porpoise of Life points out - a billion years of "survive and procreate" mean the brain is virtually hard-wired to assert its psychological selfhood. Questioning this for a moment creates near terror.

I'm actually the only materialist in this village. Or would be if I existed!

IR
Click to expand...

If you still doubt your own existence, then just send me $10,000.00 (USD) and I will absolutely prove to you that you are indeed real.

And if you are not real, then I will double your money back.
 
Loss Leader said:
I don't think anyone is arguing that. The "self" is an illusion created by physical processes. The question you don't seem to answer is: so what? So what if there is no single self?

There are functioning neurosystems and they are distinct from other functioning neurosystems in time, place, and construction.
Click to expand...
Then you agree there is no observer and no experiencer? These are conceptual constructs not reality.

IR

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
 
Myriad said:
The AHB and I are on the same page, but different paragraphs.

I think the subjective self is a real phenomenon, but is not a "thing" in the conventional sense, just as the story in a book is as real and material as the paper and ink, but is not the paper and ink itself. The self is a complex pattern of activity, an ongoing computation.

I also don't believe that the world is an illusion (though of course some of its apparent properties can be illusory). What is largely illusory is the distinction between the self and the world. Most of what we think of as unique and individual to ourselves actually comes not directly from our own cognition or from our genes, but from our history of interaction with the rest of the world (including, of course, other people). The world makes impressions on our brains and most of the self is the sum total of those impressions. We're something like mirrors, taking credit for creating the incredibly intricate images we think are contained inside of us, when we're mostly reflecting. (When our brains are malformed or injured, the result is much less like a damaged computer—which usually doesn't work at all—than like a damaged mirror, that presents a clouded or fragmented image.)
Click to expand...
We agree, the sense of self is like 'consciousness' a rubric of separate process that the body preforms.

When I have said the world is illusory, I just mean that what we perceive is a fabrication of the brain. And we should be mindful of the fact that it is sometimes accurate and sometimes not.

:)
 
Myriad said:
Added and altered for completeness:

The body is real. The brain is real. The perceptions are real. Memories are real. The narrative that the brain constructs from those memories and perceptions is real. The notion that these perceptions happen to someone the same brain that computed the narrative cannot be substantiated is quite obvious under materialism. The brain can construct stories that a someone exists and pay attention to these stories. But it cannot construct Those stories constitute an actual psychological self.
Click to expand...

... and those stories happen to no one? Correct? Because of course a story cannot experience or observe. Obviously. Correct?

IR
 
Donn said:
Is there a difference, in your usage, between self, personal self and psychological self?
Click to expand...

I find some terms lend themselves, not usefully, to too wide a scope of interpretation. You could for example construct it that a "personal self" is simply a collection of brain processes seen by no one. That's not unreasonable but to me misses the point.

IR
 
I Robot said:
You don't know what I mean by experiencer? I mean this sense that someONE is experiencing. As opposed to simply a narrative being attended to, which is what we both agree is actually all that's happening.

IR
Click to expand...
When you write these things, do you sit back in satisfaction that you've actually expressed your thoughts?
 
Loss Leader said:
When you write these things, do you sit back in satisfaction that you've actually expressed your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Not particularly. I just guessed that as it was a pretty short sentence then probably you didn't know what I meant about "experiencer," perhaps.

You wrote - The "self" is an illusion created by physical processes. The question you don't seem to answer is: so what? So what if there is no single self?

I replied - Then you agree there is no observer and no experiencer? These are conceptual constructs not reality.

You said you didn't know what I meant.

If I expand it a bit then I'd say - If you agree that the self is an illusion - you know emerging from physical processes - then you'd be happy to agree that some of the qualities ascribed to this illusion could also be illusory. Not unreasonable, yes?

Two qualities ascribed to this illusion are that of being an observer or an experiencer. So I'm asking... is it clear that these two particular qualities cannot be real given the true nature of the self we've just agreed upon.

IR
 
Last edited:
I Robot said:
Then you agree there is no observer and no experiencer? These are conceptual constructs not reality.

IR

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You keep saying that observation and experience exist, but observers and experiencers don't. How does that follow? "That which experiences/observes" IS an experiencer/observer. Whether this is a computer hooked up to a sensor, a human, or something else doesn't matter. And the nature and complexity of this observer's ability to conceptualize have no bearing on that.

And could you also explain why psychological selves are not real?
I agree that they're not themselves material, but they are a function of matter that is interacting in certain ways.
 
I Robot said:
Not particularly. I just guessed that as it was a pretty short sentence then probably you didn't know what I meant about "experiencer," perhaps.

You wrote - The "self" is an illusion created by physical processes. The question you don't seem to answer is: so what? So what if there is no single self?

I replied - Then you agree there is no observer and no experiencer? These are conceptual constructs not reality.

You said you didn't know what I meant.

If I expand it a bit then I'd say - If you agree that the self is an illusion - you know emerging from physical processes - then you'd be happy to agree that some of the qualities ascribed to this illusion could also be illusory. Not unreasonable, yes?

Two qualities ascribed to this illusion are that of being an observer or an experiencer. So I'm asking... is it clear that these two particular qualities cannot be real given the true nature of the self we've just agreed upon.

IR
Click to expand...

false dichotomy

Separate bodies appear to exist in an apparent material universe, from self report different bodies have different sensation and perceptions.

So separate bodies which appear to exist experience different perceptions.

Also tools in the apparent world seem to be developed which can detect events in the apparent world.

Both the separate bodies and these tools may qualify as 'observers'.
 
I Robot said:
If I expand it a bit then I'd say - If you agree that the self is an illusion - you know emerging from physical processes - then you'd be happy to agree that some of the qualities ascribed to this illusion could also be illusory. Not unreasonable, yes?

Two qualities ascribed to this illusion are that of being an observer or an experiencer. So I'm asking... is it clear that these two particular qualities cannot be real given the true nature of the self we've just agreed upon.
Click to expand...


That doesn't follow at all. There is something that is observing and experiencing, even if we simply talk about each single neuron. My cluster of neurons that detects horizontal lines are being physically affected when I gaze at my computer screen. They are firing off chemicals which are changing the electrical potential between them and other neurons in response from chemical-electrical stimuli from other cells. They are experiencing and observing.

What is your point?
 
I Robot said:
No. There is observation. There is no evidence for an observer. That's science. That's a position based on demonstrable fact.




There's no evidence for an observer, as in a limited entity which observes.

The brain creates the illusion that it has a personal self. It does this for no one.

IR

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

OK, there is no evidence of first person experience, the best we can muster is third person accounts (looking at brain scans -- an image correlated with someone else's second person experience). What next?
 
LarryS said:
OK, there is no evidence of first person experience, the best we can muster is third person accounts (looking at brain scans -- an image correlated with someone else's second person experience). What next?
Click to expand...

The reports of subjective experiences are the study of science all the time, surveys when done correctly are valuable tools. They are also a common part of many fields such as medicine.

this does not mean that there is a Cartesian theater and a little mini-me, it does mean that human bodies can describe their experiences.
 
Loss Leader said:
That doesn't follow at all. There is something that is observing and experiencing, even if we simply talk about each single neuron. My cluster of neurons that detects horizontal lines are being physically affected when I gaze at my computer screen. They are firing off chemicals which are changing the electrical potential between them and other neurons in response from chemical-electrical stimuli from other cells. They are experiencing and observing.

What is your point?
Click to expand...

Loss Leader,

Your statement is pure dualism.

Neural firing IS your reality. It is not seen by anyone. There is no central neuron observing.

If you want to see neural firing, then open your eyes. That is all there is. No one witnesses this. Agreed?

What happens is that a story, a narrative about an experiencer can be attended to by the brain and this creates the sensation that there is someone thinking, someone hearing the thoughts. It's, as we agreed, an illusion.

The thoughts passing through your mind at this very moment are not in actuality being heard by anyone. Yet the act of attention being given to them creates the sensation that someone is there experiencing them.

That's materialism.

IR
 
Porpoise of Life said:
You keep saying that observation and experience exist, but observers and experiencers don't. How does that follow?
Click to expand...

It's not about following or not following. It's about using scientific method to investigate and being ruthlessly honest about the results. Not everything initially makes sense.

Francis Crick, William James and many other luminaries all fell into the same trap. Like Loss Leader they were looking for a "place in the brain" where observation, or experiencing, was taking place.

It's instinct blindness. The brain has been hard-wired through it's evolutionary journey to absolutely regard the notion of not having a personal self as a MAJOR THREAT, pretty much as if a sabre-toothed tiger suddenly walked into your room. If someone walked up to you in a bar and said you don't exist... would you just take it? Doubt I would!

And could you also explain why psychological selves are not real?
I agree that they're not themselves material, but they are a function of matter that is interacting in certain ways.
Click to expand...

Psychological selfhood emerges from a variety of lower-order brain processes. It of course has immense social value. And likewise there is nothing inherently false about emergent properties. But not all the attributes and qualities ascribed to it are, in materialist terms, real.

Socially, of course there is an observer, an experiencer. I'm unlikely to be able to fight wild animals or get off with anyone if these aspects of selfhood are not emerging as they should.

But if I want to investigate the two questions in the subject of this thread then I need to be able to understand the difference between a socially useful illusion and material reality.

IR
 
Last edited:
I Robot said:
But if I want to investigate the two questions in the subject of this thread then I need to be able to understand the difference between a socially useful illusion and material reality.

IR
Click to expand...


You appear to have already made up your mind. So why don't you tell us what it is you think the point is. Everything is material, the self is an illusion ... and? So what? What conclusion would you like to draw from this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom