The brain & human experience

Bruno Putzeys · Jul 20, 2006

@LG

Actually the only axiom of scientific inquiry is that not every single observation is wrong. I think that's reasonable. The scientific method then tells us how to make targeted observations, get better quality data, work towards a theory etc.

It is true that if one rejects even the notion that some observations are correct, one is left completely in the dark and anything goes. That also means that nothing is certain any longer. Every single thing you think you understand could suddenly cease to be, from reading to the function of the doorknob to the toilet flush.

Interestingly enough it works like that in dreams. In dreams there's only an internal representation without a corresponding reality. You can't read in a dream, because the letters weren't there until you tried to look (so they change all the time). The toilet flush may spew the whole thing in your face. The door may never open.

It is also the only way of holding on to religious beliefs in a logically consistent fashion. So here you go: do you want to believe in hypotheses that have never been logically required to explain any valid observation, and throw out everything else you think you know, or will you realise that the external world is just a bit too reliable to be totally imaginary, and learn to understand it and how to make your way through it?

Jimbo07 · Jul 20, 2006

Bruno Putzeys said:
@LG

Actually the only axiom of scientific inquiry is that not every single observation is wrong. I think that's reasonable...

It is true that if one rejects even the notion that some observations are correct, one is left completely in the dark and anything goes.

Well said!

:clap:

Imaginative · Jul 20, 2006

Hi LG

If, everyone accepted your brand of philosophy and were all in agreement 100%, how would this all encompassing philosophy of yours change anything.

This would be a great opportunity for you to share with us what your vision of this shared philosphical ideology would mean to mankind.

I would be interested in where you take your philosphy next, after all philosophy in general wouldn't come to an end just because we might all agree with your idea.

Dark Jaguar · Jul 20, 2006

I'll spell it out. Occam's razor isn't "go for the simplest possible explanation at all times". That's "it is". It is "given multiple explanations where both explain a phenomenon to the same accuracy, go for the one that invokes less/already known/less complex entities". If an explanation does not accuratly explain a phenomenon, it doesn't matter how simple it is, occam doesn't apply.

Marquis de Carabas · Jul 20, 2006

Dark Jaguar said:
I'll spell it out. Occam's razor isn't "go for the simplest possible explanation at all times". That's "it is". It is "given multiple explanations where both explain a phenomenon to the same accuracy, go for the one that invokes less/already known/less complex entities". If an explanation does not accuratly explain a phenomenon, it doesn't matter how simple it is, occam doesn't apply.

Ah, but you see, "go for the simplest possible explanation at all times" is simpler than "given multiple explanations where both explain a phenomenon to the same accuracy, go for the one that invokes less/already known/less complex entities" and is therefore, according to Occam's razor, correct.

UndercoverElephant · Jul 21, 2006

Imaginative said:
Hi LG

If, everyone accepted your brand of philosophy and were all in agreement 100%, how would this all encompassing philosophy of yours change anything.

I asked him that question nearly three years ago on philosophyforums.com, shortly before he was banned for "wasting bandwidth". He is yet to answer it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21911&highlight=paradise+lifegazer

For the purposes of this thread, let us assume two things :

1) Idealism is true.
2) The observable/observed world behaves exactly as if Materialism is true.

Now, these two assumptions should please everybody. It pleases Lifegazer, because it saves him from trying to convince everybody that materialism is false. And it pleases the JREF skeptics because it renders the falsity of materialism a total irrelevance.

Science is the investigation of the observable Universe by repeatable methods. The fact that nobody has claimed Randis money, and the fact that nobody can ever provide experimental evidence that materialism is false strongly support assumption number 2. The observable world always behaves as if materialism is true, regardless of whether or not it is actually true.

The mind-body problem, and all the other logical proofs against materialism (e.g. Jackson, Chalmers) do not change (2), they merely support (1).

My question to Lifegazer is as follows :

If in fact Idealism is true, but the observed Universe behaves exactly as if materialism is true, then how should this change our behaviour, our ethics and our morality? What is the relevance of idealism being true if the Universe behaves exactly as if materialism is true? Does it change the way we carry out scientific investigation into the obserable Universe? I mean - if the observable Universe always behaves as if materialism were true, then what difference does it make to science that idealism is actually true? Does it change the way we decide what is right and wrong? How does ontology affect ethics?

First response from LG

Armed with the knowledge that the Mind imposes the awareness of the universe upon itself must affect science somehow. For starters, no more the belief that there is a causal agent "out there" for every perceived effect, for ultimately, the Mind is the causal agent of every-thing, as well as the laws/order itself.

I honestly believe that physicists are leading us down a garden path with their string theories. And I'm almost certain that there is no 'graviton'. And of course, scientists would need to step back from viewing the brain as the causal agent of perceived existence.
Presently, scientific bias towards "causal agents out there" has led us into looking for "things" that
I think simply do not exist.

If you want to play along with this, you're going to have to immerse yourself into the idea that we are all the same entity. Of course, that changes things completely.

etc...

Ryokan · Jul 21, 2006

I just want to remind everyone about the future, as seen by Lifegazer.

lifegazer said:
I foresee three possibilities:
(1) Enforced end: war, comet; climate calamity; or whatever.
(2) Profound revolution: philosophical/scientific (and hence, religious). Imagine that scientists & philosophers agree that an omnipresent God does exist. Now imagine the consequences to mankind. We would see the onset of a spiritual revolution unequalled in all history. Such a movement would [slowly] lead to some sort of world communist state.
(3) The Second coming of God, in man. That is to say, the second time that a man KNEW he was God. The next time, he won't come to cruxify himself. If he comes again, he will cruxify all that reject him for the final time.

That's right, if we don't believe Lifegazer, we'll all be crucified at the second coming.

Any idea when that will be, Lifegazer? I'd like to make long term plans, but if it's any time soon I'd like to know.

Donks · Jul 21, 2006

Ryokan said:
I just want to remind everyone about the future, as seen by Lifegazer.

That's right, if we don't believe Lifegazer, we'll all be crucified at the second coming.

Any idea when that will be, Lifegazer? I'd like to make long term plans, but if it's any time soon I'd like to know.

In scenario (3), is lifegazer the first or second coming of god (as defined by lifegazer)?

Ryokan · Jul 21, 2006

As for the second coming, it was supposed to come when Lifegazer returned to the JREF forum, at least that's what he explained in his farewell thread at the time.

lifegazer said:
I was an ordinary guy who discovered the truth and spent too much time trying to tell everyone else this, without realising that I should have ignored everybody else (with hindsight, it's easy to say) and concentrated upon the second-stage of the journey, for and by Myself.

The next era of my life will be devoted to this. Indeed, I'm going on "a retreat" next week which will herald the dawn of this new era. From now on, I will seek existential salvation from the inside, as Jesus suggested ("the kingdom of God is within you").
And if I ever find it, woe betide this ******* awful world that I have had to endure. I will not obliterate it, but I will change it... whether it likes it or not.

Those that prefer the status-quo of selfishness and greed and separation and injustice and inequality and war and death, had better hope that nobody like me is ever successful.
Unfortunately though, you're all ****ed. Because success is guaranteed. So enjoy the rest of your mingy experiences and don't come complaining when those four horses come riding over the horizon.

Ryokan · Jul 21, 2006

Oh, I also want to remind everyone that Lifegazer has superpowers. You too can have superpowers, if you just believe in his ideas.

lifegazer said:
One must strive to lose the belief in actual human identity and recognise that each individual human is nought but a different experience being had by God (Yourself). Hence, God is the essence of all mankind. Hence you now have legitimate (logically) reason to love your neighbour as yourself.

When/if one finally and completely accepts oneself as God, one will have Christ consciousness. Then, as The Christ himself said:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."

Believe that "I and the father are One", and you shall have the capacity to do greater works than those reported by the Christ.
Reassuringly, one cannot have such power whilst one still sees himself as man. Therefore, such power is used for the good of all existence... or not at all.

Of course, Lifegazer refuses to show those powers, because then we'd start to worship him, and he wants none of that.

lifegazer said:
Jesus (amongst many works) raised the dead - including the dead Jesus himself - and inspired 2000 years of worship in the man that was Jesus!!!

I don't want the next 2000 years devoted to discussion & worship of 'lifegazer'.

Imaginative · Jul 21, 2006

JustGeoff said:
I asked him that question nearly three years ago on philosophyforums.com, shortly before he was banned for "wasting bandwidth". He is yet to answer it.

Oh well, at least I'm asking the right kind of questions, which is what philosophy is all about, right?

Any philosphy is only as good as the reasoning behind it and it's defence against criticism, in which case LG has a lot of work to do.

wollery · Jul 21, 2006

Imaginative said:
Oh well, at least I'm asking the right kind of questions, which is what philosophy is all about, right?

Any philosphy is only as good as the reasoning behind it and it's defence against criticism, in which case LG has a lot of work to do.

He's had a very long time and, apparently, has yet to do any work at all. :oldroll:

ImaginalDisc · Jul 21, 2006

lifegazer said:
Scientists seek to understand how 'the brain' causes human experience.

Firstly, this is evidence supporting my claim that science views the [experienced] world-of-things as real-in-themselves.
... This is an error, of course, because nothing within experience is actually real.

Please provide evidence that nothing is real. Oh wait, then your evidence wouldn't be real either, would it? :boggled:

The distinction between experienced-things and real-things should be clear to any sincere reader, by now.
... Also, this is [a portion of] evidence supporting my claim for scientific-reform.

Anyway, read this interchange from another thread:-
Originally Posted by wollery :
"You yourself noted in one of the other threads that tampering with the brain alters emotions and feelings - 'experiences' (do I really have to look it up and link to it?)."

... This was my response:
"Please do. In the very same post, you'll also see I say that altering thoughts/feelings consequently alters the state of the brain & body.

I propose that there is an orderly relationship between sensations, thought & feeling... and since the sensations are, in effect, the [experienced] world itself (including the experienced-brain), my philosophy perfectly embraces a system whereby 'the brain' (sensations) can affect thought & emotion... and vice versa.
... Please remember that sensations (the essential ingredients of the world) are an experience too.

Also, please contemplate - if thought & emotion are effects of the physical-brain - why thought and emotion would (as they do) have the ability to effect brain/body states.
You cannot advocate that the brain is the essential cause of thought & emotion if thought & emotion alone have the ability to alter brain/body states.

Observe how science errs. Bias towards worldly-reality results in a theory that the [experienced] brain causes human experience - which, laughably, includes the experienced-brain!
Further, contemplate my response to Wollery, explaining the relationship between sensation, thought & feeling. Science has no reason to believe that 'the brain' causes human experience.

Aside from evidence. No one has been able to chat with us about their experiences and thoughts without a brain.

Regardless, countless £$£$ & time are spent trying to solve the mystery and find the cause of human experience, via study of the experienced brain as the cause of it all!

It's gotten beyond a joke. And it's time for change.

lifegazer · Jul 21, 2006

kieran said:
Woah woah woah. Slow down. I think you had some massive typos there .... you must have meant to write ... "This may be in error, because nothing within experience is necessarily real" ...

Your view of the world is neither more or less valid than others - but you seem to treat it as though only your view is viable. You might sound a bit less pontificating if you chose your words more wisely.

Basic philosophy mate - sensations are distinct from real things, existing necessarily beyond consciousness.
All One can observe, are the ordered sensations within/upon consciousness, which themselves yield the impression of objects.
But the impression of an object within consciousness, is not the reality of an object existing beyond consciousness.

I repeat: NO THING within consciousness is real.

lifegazer · Jul 21, 2006

Bruno Putzeys said:
@LG

Actually the only axiom of scientific inquiry is that not every single observation is wrong. I think that's reasonable. The scientific method then tells us how to make targeted observations, get better quality data, work towards a theory etc.

It's the theories (and research towards confirming those theoies), which confirm that science is biased towards belief in the reality of the world that it observes.

It is true that if one rejects even the notion that some observations are correct, one is left completely in the dark and anything goes.

I have never said that.
I acknowledge that order exists between the appearance of things and that this order is understandable.
My gripe about science concerns theories regarding the absolute-causality of the [experienced] world and of the human experience too.
I am also concerned at the influence science has had upon cultural and moral change.

I'm not religious, so please don't lecture me about the problems of religion.

lifegazer · Jul 21, 2006

Imaginative said:
Hi LG

If, everyone accepted your brand of philosophy and were all in agreement 100%, how would this all encompassing philosophy of yours change anything.

This would be a great opportunity for you to share with us what your vision of this shared philosphical ideology would mean to mankind.

I would be interested in where you take your philosphy next, after all philosophy in general wouldn't come to an end just because we might all agree with your idea.

The problems of this world are due to belief in it's reality and the consequent belief in the reality of the human individual.
Salvation can only occur via acknowledgement of unity.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself."

... Great words, but impossible to do unless one sees thyself in thy neighbour.

UndercoverElephant · Jul 21, 2006

wollery said:
He's had a very long time and, apparently, has yet to do any work at all.

No noticeable progress so far. He appears to have learned nothing at all in the entire time I've been aware of him.

Ryokan · Jul 21, 2006

lifegazer said:
I'm not religious, so please don't lecture me about the problems of religion.

Jimbo07 · Jul 21, 2006

In which I agree with lifegazer

lifegazer said:
Basic philosophy mate - sensations are distinct from real things,

Yep. Your sensory impression is not the thing itself. I've agreed with you from the beginning.

existing necessarily beyond consciousness.

Assuming of course, that consciousness isn't an illusion, I'll agree.

All One can observe, are the ordered sensations within/upon consciousness, which themselves yield the impression of objects.

Nitpick: observation and sensation are probably somewhat synonymous, but I'll agree that a collection of sensations/observations can yield an impression.

But the impression of an object within consciousness, is not the reality of an object existing beyond consciousness.

Get rid of 'within consciousness' and I'll agree that an impression of an object is not the object.

I repeat: NO THING within consciousness is real.

Here we start to diverge. In a sense, if consciousness is real then all of the impressions within consciousness are real. This becomes stronger if consciousness is an illusion, because impressions would then be nothing more than something like a (perhaps very complex) electrical/chemical signal.

In short: all we can know about an object are impressions compiled from sensory data.

lifegazer: In all your posts, you have provided not one good reason as to why we should not assume that these impressions from sensory data are good approximations of real objects. Even if I granted you that impressions formed from sensory data are not good approximations of real objects, what of an apparent order in those data?

I acknowledge that order exists between the appearance of things and that this order is understandable.

Oh. So what's the problem then?

My gripe about science concerns theories regarding the absolute-causality of the [experienced] world and of the human experience too.

Oh.

How could something like a string theory, or M-theory or any newer, better faster theory answer absolute-causality? One question that the 'laws of physics' can't answer is: why are there laws of physics? Some sort of multiverse could explain why there are these laws of physics, but not why any should exist in the first place... or...

Why something rather than nothing?

Physics necessarily needs something to study. It's the study of something, regardless of whether that something is real objects or just our collected set of observations.

lifegazer said:
It's the theories (and research towards confirming those theoies), which confirm that science is biased towards belief in the reality of the world that it observes.

If you're uncomfortable with the tacit acceptance that physics must have something to study (read: the universe just is, it's existence is a fact), so be it. Science can't answer questions about unobservable things, and conversely, anything observable can be studied by science. Why does science need to reform?

I am also concerned at the influence science has had upon cultural and moral change.

Ah... now we're getting somewhere.

My first question is: if we're all just experiences of a common being, why should we care about cultural change? Anyway, that's a trivial objection on my part...

On a philosophical (ethics) level: what cultural and moral changes has science influenced? How has it influenced them? What, if any, influence should it have? What other influences should be given equal voice? These would be good questions for another thread.

I'm not religious, so please don't lecture me about the problems of religion.

Wouldn't dream of it.

ETA: I'm an idiot

lifegazer · Jul 21, 2006

Ryokan said:
Oh, really? Could've fooled me. Especially since nearly half your threads are about God and/or Jesus.

Doesn't prove a thing.
To be religious, I would have to be affiliated to any one of man's many religions, believing and parroting the mantras fed to me by the hierarchy of said establishment and participating in their rituals... frequenting their services.
I do no such thing.

Do not equate belief in the existence of Jesus to being a Christian. There's alot more to it than that.

The brain & human experience

Thinker

Illuminator

Scholar

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces

Insert something funny here

Unregistered

Insert something funny here

Insert something funny here

Scholar

Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces

Insert something funny here

Illuminator

Philosopher