Where is your experience?

[BravesFan]

Your anecdote is quite irrelevant and a bit offending. Are you trying to discredit philosophy for some effect?



I, personally, love the study of philosophy and think it's at very least a superb timepass and a hobby. And I duly applaud professional philosophers like Daniel Dennett for tackling important/current issues ('belief in belief' concept regarding theism-atheism debates is a fine example) and for making me ponder. Or Peter Singer, who made me realize I'm a speciesist.

Ten years ago I would have agreed with you. But I have read so much nonsensical, rambling, malarky since that time (and gotten older and more focused on what we can prove rather than how it makes us feel). I read some of this stuff and it truly seems to me that in Philosophy, nobody gets a C in college or is told "maybe this isn't for you" because there is stuff out there that infuriates me with it's total lack of sense. It's like the professors just run the papers through a word counter to see what the grade is.

I can rationalize anything if given the motivation and the time to do it, AND I can do it in any word/page count required by me. That doesn't mean my stupid ideas have any rational merit in the real world.

I think an individual pondering something is fine, but the projection at others of a philosophical construct as fact is akin to religion and just like religion, worthless.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

<snipped>

We "know" what green light is, as far as the wavelength is concerned, but we also actually "see" it too, and they're consistent to each other. When the wavelength strikes the receptors in your eyes that stimuli is transduced into your brain and you are "seeing" the light. But that entire process of transduction ISN'T the green light, it's the interpretation of green light. And yes it IS consistent, and we know the machinery involved and but the fact of the matter is we aren't seeing the green light, we're perceiving it. That's just a distinction that naive realism makes aware of. It doesn't mean green light doesn't exist and doesn't remove our knowledge of it, it's just that "caveat emptor" in reality vs. perception. Sure our perceptions can be extremely extremely correlated to reality, and sometimes not too! But that's not a bad thing, nor is it woo, it's just something that you have to consider.

It almost seems you are describing representative realism, not naive realism. Interpretation of wavelength into green light = representation of reality?

 

[Lowpro]

It almost seems you are describing representative realism, not naive realism. Interpretation of wavelength into green light = representation of reality?

Well I am describing representative realism now, but again I got there because I was, as my argument then in another thread months ago, described as arguing for naive realism (at the time I wasn't aware of it, as BDZ alluded to in a previous post). Once I learned more, I became aware of naive realism.

Basically what I was showing was how I got from naive realism in my argument to representative realism

Also, I should say that I am not comfortable using naive realism and representative realism to describe what I am trying to say purely because I don't think I have a handle on the theories completely enough to prepare myself for the consequences of subscribing to either, which is a pitfall that I think BDZ often tries to illuminate to people.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

A cursory glance on naive and representative realism, for those in the dark :

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Well I am describing representative realism now, but again I got there because I was, as my argument then in another thread months ago, described as arguing for naive realism (at the time I wasn't aware of it, as BDZ alluded to in a previous post). Once I learned more, I became aware of naive realism.

Basically what I was showing was how I got from naive realism in my argument to representative realism

Oh, right. Ok.

Also, I should say that I am not comfortable using naive realism and representative realism to describe what I am trying to say purely because I don't think I have a handle on the theories completely enough to prepare myself for the consequences of subscribing to either, which is a pitfall that I think BDZ often tries to illuminate to people.

I know what you mean. This is the very thing I try to avoid myself. Only a rare few philosophical ideologies describe my positions fully, most of them carry unnecessary baggage that I couldn't defend. So whenever I make a case, I never argue for an ideology, I argue for my interpretation of reality.

 

[BravesFan]

The above description of direct reality is inaccurate as whatever the brain may do to our perception (say by hallucination or optical illusion) is merely a relation of our own personal physical limitations. (the way our eyes work, the way our brain works) This doesn't exclude the thing from being as it we perceive it. Nobody but a jackwagon thinks the wheels are actually turning on an optical illusion(or whatever the illusory effect is). They know they are looking at a 2-d picture. The effect doesn't alter the reality that the picture is 2-d and stagnant.


Hallucination caused by a damaged mind (be it by drugs or damage or illness) cannot be used as examples against direct reality either as to equivocate them to normal perception is to remove the effect of external stimuli. If we have a momentary illusory hallucination (often caused by fear or a natural optical illusion) we soon discover our error and our brain knows that what we thought we saw wasn't actually what we saw.

I think that the only way that anything other than direct reality works is by assuming that only human perception is reality. How do we know there aren't other beings who perceive everything and due to their improved mental and sensory capabilities never see anything different from how it is ? Physical limitations of the individual do not change the reality of an object.



Oh dear, I've gone and gotten all involved in this.......crap

 

[Paul2]

Let's take this a step further. Let's say we have the technology to extract your brain from your body, and that we can put it in a machine and link this machine with your body through your senses... In this way, your seeing, proprioception, your hearing, everything, would be transmitted from your body to your brain. Let's say that you are not aware of this operation and so, when we wake you up you feel exactly normal, so, we give you a ticket and you take a train...

Let's go back to the original question: if I wanted to point at you... where should I point to?

I need to clarify what's going on in this thought experiment. Please confirm if I have it right:

1. The brain is disconnected from the body, right? No physical connection.

2. The brain is physically connected to a machine.

3. The machine is physically connected to the body that is missing the brain. So we have brain - machine - body. In effect, we've put a machine between the body and the brain.

4. Then, the machine, the body, and the brain go on a train.

5. The question is, where would we say the subject is?

It's not clear why being on a train is relevant.

Also, do you intend a distinction between where the subject would say he/she is, and where another person would say where the subject is?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

<snipped>

If we have a momentary illusory hallucination (often caused by fear or a natural optical illusion) we soon discover our error and our brain knows that what we thought we saw wasn't actually what we saw.

Which is exactly why illusions and hallucinations are perfect examples against direct realism. They demonstrate that what we perceived was not actually what existed, which is what direct realism claims. The possibility that our perception can convey anything other than reality, or reality in an altered manner, is already undermining direct realism. Hence why I'm thinking most in a skeptic community would not be inclined to defend that position. But of course I await to be corrected.

I think that the only way that anything other than direct reality works is by assuming that only human perception is reality. How do we know there aren't other beings who perceive everything and due to their improved mental and sensory capabilities never see anything different from how it is ? Physical limitations of the individual do not change the reality of an object.

Well it seems you are actually speaking against direct realism, not for it.

Oh dear, I've gone and gotten all involved in this.......crap

It's addictive, innit

 

[BravesFan]

See, IMO, regardless of our ability to process information, that has no effect on the reality of the object.

I think reality exists without humans and without long drawn out philosophical mumbo jumbo attempting to describe it.

 

[annnnoid]

There appear to be two well-defined points of view on this issue (the OP). There are those who speculate (the majority)…..as in: ‘…localized somewhere in the general vicinity of brain or thereabouts ….maybe….if I had any idea what the question even means …’ (and who actually does...and does it even mean anything???)

….and then there are those few who might actually know. Whether there is, in fact, something to know is (amongst the philistine) endlessly debatable. What is indisputable is that there is something to not know ….that being, what the heck is the answer to the OP…or whether the question is even coherent. From the responses so far there does appear to be a consensus that there is no definitive answer to the OP nor any definitive understanding of the question ('experience' - whatever that is - is localized in a brain which apparently produces 'it' in some way as yet unknown).

The likelihood of there being one of the later (a ‘knower’) at JREF is probably ….unlikely. I suppose we could then speculate whether there even is an answer to the question and / or if it is possible to actually know what that answer is. Not academically…as in ‘scientifically speaking…experience is this variety of ontological reality and it occurs thus in relation to x-y-z electro-bio-chemical phenomenon’…but as in ‘before this point there is not me…after this point experience occurs’….where ‘point’ only becomes defined when ‘experience’ does ( The inevitable paradox of what exists prior to the ability to reference experience could obviously only have a speculative resolution...until it didn't).

Sounds dangerously woo’y. Metaphysical mind-traps. Not exactly speculative though. ‘We’ begin somewhere. Human experience / awareness is, judging by all the evidence available, anything but a homogenous geography. It has various trajectories…all of which implicate degrees and variations of the meaning of experience. Experience doesn’t just ‘occur’….’somewhere’. It occurs with varying degrees of authenticity, varying degrees of intensity, and different ‘qualities’. Thus it is not at all unrealistic to suggest that ‘authentic intense’ will produce a significantly different insight into the OP than ‘dysfunctional indifferent’.

These sorts of questions about "where our thoughts come from and where do they live?" ...etc Always seem to end in woo. I understand why, it's a strange concept our consciousness. To ponder one's own thoughts origins or what makes us up and to then imagine that it isn't a "place" like there isn't a thought bank waiting to spit out thoughts in our heads, but it's just a bunch of little parts doing their jobs....well, it's a complex ,yet oddly simple, thing to ponder.

But just because something is weird to imagine, doesn't mean that it isn't the truth. Especially when we have the evidence to back it up. Much more evidence than any woo explanation I have read anyway.

….’ The truth ‘….hmmmmmmmmmm. I wonder how often this fallacy pops up at JREF. ‘Science is THE TRUTH’. I'd say that's stretching the truth a bit. Science is, at best, nothing more than our best guess so far. A vast model of a still vaster (is that a word?) ‘thing’. Our model is not the thing, it is only a representation of our ability to model the thing. The only ‘truth’ involved is the degree to which you and I accurately model ourself (the only ‘thing’ we actually are). Experience the 'truth' of experience and maybe there's some chance the truth of 'truth' might introduce itself.

Well as I said before, naive realism seems to be a bit more of a "caveat emptor" consideration that is within model-dependent realism and that's where woo's can latch onto it. I still think the OP question of where experience is with respect to a human subject has been answered; it's localized in the brain and probably nowhere specific as the inclination leads us to believe. "Self" is extremely illusory, and I think illusory is the best term too...

For something ‘extremely illusory’ it’s awfully persistent and substantive. Seems to begin when you’re born (before there is even any awareness of awareness)…is the central feature in every single experience any ‘self’ ever has…and endures pretty much till your last breath.

Still, you mention an important point "driven by scientific knowledge not a philosophical ideology". I beg to differ... there is no such thing as "scientific knowledge" there are facts and interpretations about such facts, and those interpretations always are part of a theoretical model, and a theoretical model is an ideology.

Better not repeat this too often around here, science is not supposed to be an ideology.

 

[BravesFan]

I meant the truth in a "what we know so far" kinda way not in a philosophical "absolute" way. i meant it in the way you would say counter a friends assertion that Jeter hit 3 HR's this week with the "truth" that he hit 4....

 

[SezMe]

4. Then, the machine, the body, and the brain go on a train.

No. The brain and machine stay back in the lab, the brain in a vat. The body goes on the train. The train is important only that it provides the means to separate the brain from the body. The body and machine communicate wirelessly.

 

[Lowpro]

For something ‘extremely illusory’ it’s awfully persistent and substantive. Seems to begin when you’re born (before there is even any awareness of awareness)…is the central feature in every single experience any ‘self’ ever has…and endures pretty much till your last breath.

I meant illusory in explanation, ranging from the definition of the self (Descartes) to determining where it is, to now determining the specifics of what summates it so that it is what we speculate to being an emergent property of all the stuff that occurs in your brain.

It's illusory in its explanation so to speak.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Gotta love BBC Horizon. Great vid.

Indeed. The seeing yourself from behind bit was trippy.

It is a FANTASTIC video yes and yes, how about that, and these are (to my knowledge) about the first kind of experiments in this regard, who know how far can they go. This is the page of the laboratory:

http://www.ehrssonlab.se/research.php

Very interesting research IMO.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I know about philosophy of science and it is meandering meddling nitpicky snobby nonsense.

I'm not saying that AN INDIVIDUAL can't have a personal philosophy and do science, but to think that science itself requires philosophy is something else.

My experience with people who take philosophy classes is also that they write mind numbingly boring, meandering works that take a simple point and turn it into 300 pages so as to appear "deep and insightful" when honestly they have no idea wtf living in the real world is about.

Philosophy that requires rambling text is worth less than the paper it is written on.

I ,personally, see the study of philosophy to be a silly ,self impotant bit of balderdash.

Well, this speaks on its own... You are welcomed to leave the thread if you can't follow simple arguments. But don't pretend to discuss unless you are willing to think and interpret current theoretical models. That's what philosophical inquiry is all about. If it is complex to you well.. there is no shame, I was never able to really master the piano, but at least I never questioned the ability of others to do magic with it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

and with this post you have proven that all you are trying to do is impose some goofy self important will over those posting here. Your theory is silly, been proven incorrect , yet you persist to say people "fail terribly" or other diminishing self aggrandizing nonsense.

We have stated that self and experience happens in the brain. You say we are wrong , You are making the remarkable claim, you must present us with remarkable evidence. Not pondering , meandering, mumbo jumbo and hippy dippy, philosophical ejaculations that seem intended for ego building rather than claim proving.

Prove your assertion or retract it.

LOL, you have a sense of humor I like that. Thanks for the smile. Ok.. my "theory" is silly... err.. can you tell what my theory is? which are the postulates? where are the predicted observations? You like to repeat phrases that are used ad nausem at the JREF... they are funny aren't they... and the words! mumbo jumbo, etc, hilarious. I like them a lot...

But well, ok, which is my theory again? oh and my assertion? and my remarkable claim? yes yes, the remarkable evidence, uuuuu strong bold words, yes yes nice.. but I believe we would need an extraordinary claim first.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm off for today, but I spotted a video that looks promising about Model Dependent Realism, I will definitely watch it tomorrow and will finishing reading the thread (and answering some posts). Goodnight.

 

[BravesFan]

LOL, you have a sense of humor I like that. Thanks for the smile. Ok.. my "theory" is silly... err.. can you tell what my theory is? which are the postulates? where are the predicted observations? You like to repeat phrases that are used ad nausem at the JREF... they are funny aren't they... and the words! mumbo jumbo, etc, hilarious. I like them a lot...

But well, ok, which is my theory again? oh and my assertion? and my remarkable claim? yes yes, the remarkable evidence, uuuuu strong bold words, yes yes nice.. but I believe we would need an extraordinary claim first.

I would state that you are claiming that "we" or our "experiences" are not in our mind.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Really, it never ceases to amaze me the insistence of (some) members of this forum to pretend to see, or expect at any costs, some claim about something "supernatural" going on... come on... is that really all you are expecting? Here you rise a straw man "It's still being generated by the brain." Well, duh, where in my post do you see any indication of my claiming that the brain has nothing to do with it? In my example would it be generated then by the engine on the train?

Still, at least you understood what is going on, contrary to the first responses I got, you managed to realize that the sense of self is in the senses, so, in the train example if I wanted to point at your "sense of being you" I would point to your body, and it would be correct. You are located at a different location than your brain and I believe it is an interesting fact.

Of course, interesting things can be drawn from that mental experiment (to those who like to think this is) and so, your "it is still being generated by the brain" starts to be seen as an incomplete answer, as that it is not actually the brain (alone) what "causes the mind"... the senses are needed to, and that in a sense, consciousness cannot exist without the senses. No, again, is not that I'm discovering something new, revolutionary, something nobody have thought before... I just like to think about this kind of things and I'm interested in what people here think.

My so called straw man was dependent upon hypothetical qualifiers like the word "seem", it was not presented as your position, which you left hanging in the air for us to assume. It would have been a fallacy if I presented it as your position.

Looking at the history and frequency of people who come here challenging what science can show us, you have to be intentionally obtuse or self deluded to expect a reception that is different than what you got, and you then created a post using an arrogant tone of victory over the mean old skeptics. What the hell do you expect from human beings? You're creating a self fulfilling trap just to ridicule people and then patting yourself on the back.

The documentary "the secret you" is one of my favorites.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Is this thread intended to be a discussion about the sensations and frame of reference of intuitive awareness or is it to illustrate flaws in reasoning and personal error?