.
Can be determined.
Is there a tree fallen where there was a tree standing yesterday?
Can it become firewood/table to bump one's leg on?
.
The cat, by intent, is in the box.
Wondering about the state of the cat is extra. And mostly just plain silly to the extent the example is taken.
.
.
Other than observing, and/or harvesting the tree, or opening the box, the observer does nothing to either.
Both exist (makes noise when it falls/until the air runs out) regardless of any observation.
But here you are actually reinforcing my point I'm trying to make, essentially (at least from where I'm sitting).
Everything you pointed out can be boiled down to the highlighted statement I think. They exist regardless of whether or not we observe them. BUT ... you are only aware of that, because you understand the various concepts that go into their existence in the first place (like what a tree is, where it will be, the fact it is there even though you're not looking at it, the fact there is a cat in the box and opening it will only reveal the state of the cat, etc etc).
All of those are concepts of concepts of concepts. What I'm saying, is when I get to the root, I am aware of the idea of concept itself. And there is some part of my "make-up" that is aware that I am aware of those concepts. In other word, I am looking at myself saying, "hey, you are looking at me", but I'm doing both at the same time. I can be in the "right side" of my brain as well as the "left side" of my brain simultaneously, looking at both sides. It is analogous to having two eyes that work. One lets me perceive things, combined with the other I can perceive depth more accurately.
BUT still ... there is a "third" thing if you will, that is aware that I am on both sides of my brain. That third thing is how I'm able to understand the concept that I'm understanding the concepts in the first place. It's as though I'm observing myself observing, while observing myself.
I think this might be hard to visualize because
a) it could be an illusion LOL
b) we are used to thinking of things in terms of symmetry. Two eyes, two ears, two hands, two halves of the brain, etc etc. Perhaps there is a trio at work that is "unseen" which makes it harder to put the finger on, and produces this illusion.
But what I'm saying is that, regardless of whether or not it's an illusion only, it is "something". At least imo.
Now that is a more difficult concept and one that requires some parsing. I am not sure how much research has gone into the 'sense of a self', on one hand there is a lot of research into how the perceptions come about from the sensations, and some strange stuff about how senses interpenetrate, especially in the vestibular sense.
But as far as what constitutes a perceiver? Is it thought, is it meory?
It seems that a brief search is going to be overwhelming! I am not vetting these!
Extended social perception as a model of self perception:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/self.htm
And then I lost interest:
Sorry, I will read later:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=research+on+self+perception&as_sdt=400000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
No worries I lose interest about twenty minutes into something ... LOL
I don't think so. I'm looking more at this "self" thing. The assumption is that "I see the tree", but where actually is this is "I" that sees the tree? Is it the body? Are we really saying that the body sees the tree? I don't think so.
Now if you say that this "I" is just a process and not a tangible "thing" so to speak, and that you cannot investigate what "I" is beneath the level of the whole organism, or whole brain, then coolio, no problem. This leaves "I see the tree" with the "I see-ing" bit just as a figure of speech. Which to me is what it is.
Impressions of the tree form in various places inside the brain but there is no one there to see them. They are just there. Yet the brain has learned to create a voice-over - it creates "I see the tree." But this is just something it has learned. There is no tangible "I" that sees the tree in actuality.
The presence of thoughts tends to create the belief that there must be someone who hears the thoughts. Yes? It seems obvious and ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Utterly ridiculous. But when sensory consciousness remains but the amount of thoughts reduce then it can be clearly seen - there is no one there. It is only the presence of thinking that suggests this mental self - this thinker. Without the thoughts there is no one there.
Nick
Again, it's not trying to find an "I" that is seeing the tree. It is trying to find the "I" that is aware of the fact that you see the tree.
That's the "endless loop" of self-observing. And outside that loop, there seems to be a way I can even observe the loop. That is the third "thing" to me .... that is perhaps the "I" in the way I'm describing it. Even if it is an illusion or the result of the processes at work in my cabesa
