Where is your experience?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, no. An event is not apprehension. You seem to regard the event of body taking sensory input as an experience, I think an experience is the apprehension of that sensory input. This apprehension does not take place in the body, but in the mind/brain.

IMO, the experience is the result of the sensory input and brain activity, maybe that is what you are labeling as "apprehension", and if yes, I do believe it takes place in the whole body. In other words, the "mind" is NOT in the brain, but it is expressed/felt in the whole body (which naturally includes the brain). Its like if you claim that the computer is the CPU, well, IMO, the computer is the CPU + the motherboard + memory + inputs (mouse keyb) + output (screen, speakers).

Certainly, I get the gist of what you mean. But I think you are still using some terms too loosely/ambiguously. For example, we weren't talking about where someone "really" was, but where the experience "took place/was located", whatever that may mean. Maybe asking "where is Neo" is a red herring in such a philosophical context, without defining what one means by identity/personhood, what are the necessary and sufficient parts of an identity/personhood.

You forget that my stance is Model Dependent Realism, so, I think questions like "what something really is" are meaningless, all we can know (and its good enough) is if the model is useful. So yes, for all practical purposes, in my train example, the experience is happening at the location of the body. That's what the individual would answer if questioned, and that's what people sitting in the same train would answer. The same goes for Tom Anderson.

Usually you point to the body, specifically to the head, when asked, because usually people have their brains in their bodies and are not inside the matrix (probably). Any hypothetical situation, where the participants are lacking some information we who postulate that hypothetical have, is doomed to have two answers - what the people in the hypothetical know and what we know. Neo thinks he knows he's Thomas Anderson, we know he "really" isn't, Thomas Anderson is his avatar. As for where his experience is, I still maintain that that's a semantic argument (event vs apprehension).

I would say that, again, this kind of paradoxes are pseudo-problems, and arise just from Naive Realism which is a philosophical stance which will claim we need this "we know he REALLY isn't". Well, actually, inside the Matrix, he is for every practical purpose Thomas Anderson, it is only when he gets evidence about something else is going on, that he realize he could be someone else or be somewhere else. Prior to that point, he is right there.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Has it occurred to you that when we feel our consciousness is located an inch behind our eyes, this is an illusion generated by the brain. In fact the consciousness is being generated via various parts of the brain and there is a projection of some kind produced in which we feel we are present in one point behind the eyes. It seems to me that this one pointed awareness behind the eyes is an evolutionary adaptation to develop hand eye co-ordination and bi-focal vision.

I can observe this in my cat who has a superior bi-focal ability to me along with far more sensitive hearing and smell. She will have a very sophisticated sense of self located probably mid point between her eyes, ears and nose and probably experiences sound and smell in a very three dimensional way. Whereas I only have this highly developed 3D sense with sight.

I would agree with Pixy, "model" is a better word than projection, but yes, that's what we can presupe its going on. That said, is exactly why the identity of the individual will remain located at the senses even when we separate the brain from them.

 

[Lowpro]

Of course it requires the brain, I have never claimed anything else. What I do claim is that "brains alone" are uncapable of instantiate anything like a "consciousness".

It all comes down to this point though BDZ, what parts of the brain are incapable of consciousness? Do you know how much OF THE BRAIN you'd have to remove to be unconscious? I mean seriously, saying the brain alone cannot initiate consciousness ignores a lot of what the brain can do...Let me try to be more specific.

When we put a body on the train and leave the brain in a vat it's right that stimuli from the body transduce to the brain, but they don't just flip one switch, they literally hit a switch that flips another switch that flips more, and THEN the experience is felt as consciousness. If you removed the body entirely, you "could" simulate the body as if it were still there using JUST. THE. BRAIN. To go further you might as well sever entire parts of just the brain and put them on a train and you'd STILL get consciousness, because it's part of the brain!

So yes the brain itself COULD have an entire consciousness on its own though. That's important. The body is JUST a prosthesis for the brain to "do" consciousness. If you could fake the "Body Prosthesis" then the brain would be none the wiser. But it just takes the brain to do it; the brain has all the faculties (assuming we're discussing a normal brain) so I don't actually agree with you. The brain alone can induce consciousness provided something can stimulate it at all. It doesn't have to be the body though, the body's the prosthesis. You could replace the body with well contrived shocks. All the stuff of consciousness is IN the brain, it just takes something to "flip the switch".

I doubt you can extrapolate beyond that to determine consciousness isn't just the brain itself because the brain doesn't completely act on itself, though when you learn more about it you will learn just how much the brain does on its own for consciousness compared to your body's stimuli being sent to it.

 

[Weak Kitten]

You could theoretically switch someone's body with another person's body without any change in the first person's intellect or personality. It might take a while for the brain to get used to operating a new body but nothing else would change.

I occasionally have synesthesia. It is completely a flaw of my brain. In fact my senses continue to send normal signals and I am fully aware of those signals. It is in my brain where a wire gets crossed and I suddenly think that green feels fuzzy and Jazz tastes like molasses.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It all comes down to this point though BDZ, what parts of the brain are incapable of consciousness? Do you know how much OF THE BRAIN you'd have to remove to be unconscious? I mean seriously, saying the brain alone cannot initiate consciousness ignores a lot of what the brain can do...Let me try to be more specific.

Irrelevant. I believe you lost the arguments at some point. Let's do it again. If you are the one with his brain in a vat, and your body was traveling with me in the train... where would YOU consider YOU would be? If I asked you to point at yourself, what would YOU do? Remember, you don't know the surgical procedure happened, and are completely unaware of the fact that your brain is not on your head.

Now, as far as your objections, you fail to realize that they are no less speculative than mine. A brain alone, disconnected from any sensorial aparatus/body, would be unable to develop or sustain consciousness. That's what I believe... and your stance is a belief too.

Again, I have not argued at any point about the brain is not necessary to consciousness, I argue that it is a necessary condition but not sufficient.

 

[Weak Kitten]

So what you are asking is, "If you were tricked into thinking that you were a complete body rather than a shell avatar would you point to the shell avatar when asked where you are?" Of course you would, you have been tricked into thinking that your complete body is there.

Absent the trick, I would certainly state that I was in the vat. Especially since if my shell avatar is destroyed I could always get another, but if my brain was destroyed I would not be able to be revived.

Now if I was a set of thought algorithms and memory recordings uploaded into a machine I might be able to load from a backup. But that is a different issue.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

IMO, the experience is the result of the sensory input and brain activity, maybe that is what you are labeling as "apprehension", and if yes, I do believe it takes place in the whole body. In other words, the "mind" is NOT in the brain, but it is expressed/felt in the whole body (which naturally includes the brain). Its like if you claim that the computer is the CPU, well, IMO, the computer is the CPU + the motherboard + memory + inputs (mouse keyb) + output (screen, speakers).

Yes, that (underlined part) is what I'm saying, although I'm not labeling it "apprehension", I just used a dictionary definition to find some common ground. I fail to see how that experience can take place in the whole body. I simply don't understand that, given our knowledge about human physiology. Sure one could say that the whole computer does the computing, but I find that deliberately vague in our context. It is the cpu that does the processing, and that is what we (at least I) are talking about after all. Other parts of the computer/body have different tasks.

You forget that my stance is Model Dependent Realism, so, I think questions like "what something really is" are meaningless, all we can know (and its good enough) is if the model is useful.

I said questions like "where someone really is", not "what". You brought those questions up in the post I replied to, not me.

So yes, for all practical purposes, in my train example, the experience is happening at the location of the body. That's what the individual would answer if questioned, and that's what people sitting in the same train would answer. The same goes for Tom Anderson.

And by "for all practical purposes" you mean lacking the knowledge of how things "really" (sorry!) are. As I said, this hypothetical has two answers depending on the perspective - If Neo doesn't know he's a brain in a vat, then Neo doesn't know he's a brain in a vat. While actually he is a brain in a vat, as we know. His simulation may even be indistinguishable from reality. The experience is still "located" in the brain (even if unbeknownst to Neo). I believe I already made a distinction between the content of an experience (which is what you are experiencing, what's it about) and the experience itself (the comprehension/apprehension of your sensory data). Would you find that distinction incorrect ? I think it's rather helpful to clarify what we are talking about.

Let's say we live in the world of Neo, inside the matrix. Now, if that world has similar knowledge to ours, and we are limited to that knowledge, the place we would point to where the experience takes place would still be the brain (even though that's a "fake" brain inside the simulation, but only our machine overlords know that). This is basically what I'm arguing. It's irrelevant where you subjectively believe you are. If you have a brain, that's where the magic happens. Senses can be fooled.

I would say that, again, this kind of paradoxes are pseudo-problems, and arise just from Naive Realism which is a philosophical stance which will claim we need this "we know he REALLY isn't". Well, actually, inside the Matrix, he is for every practical purpose Thomas Anderson, it is only when he gets evidence about something else is going on, that he realize he could be someone else or be somewhere else. Prior to that point, he is right there.

Umm. Why even then bring that pseudo-problem up?

The bottom line is it's irrelevant what a third party lacks in knowledge when we know something is true - then that something is true. In fact, already the nature of this kind of hypotheticals inevitable generates a "real" knowledge, as opposed to the limited knowledge of the subject of the hypothetical. It then makes no sense to say there is no "really", when we have two sets of different knowledge.

You seem to be arguing only from the perspective of an unsuspecting victim of a hypothetical, which gets rather solipsistic. If Ben the Farmer doesn't know that facebook exists, then facebook doesn't exist. Because for him, for every practical purpose, it doesn't exist? Really?


Always a pleasure
Teapot

 

[Lowpro]

Irrelevant. I believe you lost the arguments at some point. Let's do it again. If you are the one with his brain in a vat, and your body was traveling with me in the train... where would YOU consider YOU would be? If I asked you to point at yourself, what would YOU do? Remember, you don't know the surgical procedure happened, and are completely unaware of the fact that your brain is not on your head.

Now, as far as your objections, you fail to realize that they are no less speculative than mine. A brain alone, disconnected from any sensorial aparatus/body, would be unable to develop or sustain consciousness. That's what I believe... and your stance is a belief too.

Again, I have not argued at any point about the brain is not necessary to consciousness, I argue that it is a necessary condition but not sufficient.

Yes I would think I was on the train. You're not wrong about this particular exercise, however your extrapolation is obscenely wrong.

My objections are NOT speculative by the way, they are informed through neuroanatomy. There is a peripheral nervous system which relays to the CNS, which THEN relays that information to areas of your brain. You can forgo the PNS entirely and just stimulate from that relay area of the brain (thalamus) for sensory information. You also forget that there are areas of the brain that work entirely within the CNS, such as the limbic system. Those are entirely within the brain and are a part of your consciousness, no external body required. A LOT of your consciousness arises purely within the CNS.

This is not a belief, this is an informed opinion, and I'm starting to think you need to read up on neuroanatomy =\

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You could theoretically switch someone's body with another person's body without any change in the first person's intellect or personality. It might take a while for the brain to get used to operating a new body but nothing else would change.

I'm not sure. Have you read reports of people who has received organs donations? A heart for instance, there have been reports of changing personalities or even having weird memories. Of course, they are completely anecdotic, could have many causes and are ultimately useless (scientifically speaking), but nevertheless, they are interesting.

I occasionally have synesthesia. It is completely a flaw of my brain. In fact my senses continue to send normal signals and I am fully aware of those signals. It is in my brain where a wire gets crossed and I suddenly think that green feels fuzzy and Jazz tastes like molasses.

Very interesting. Have you read my post regarding the "normality" of common perceptions? To a point, certain homeostatic balance should exist by biological reasons (survival), but some others might be a by product of how the individual is rised in determinate society. For instance, the Eskimo words for snow.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So what we're going to Ship of Theseus the human mind now?

If my brain is in a jar but my body is somewhere else, then I'm in two places. That ain't that hard a concept. If I was to take the engine out of your car and put it somewhere and the frame of your car somewhere else you'd understand that. This is no different.

If my brain perceives my sense of self to be somewhere else because it's been put into a situation it never evolved to comprehend, the I'm perceiving things wrongly.

You are in your brain. Period.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Absent the trick, I would certainly state that I was in the vat. Especially since if my shell avatar is destroyed I could always get another, but if my brain was destroyed I would not be able to be revived.

Yup. Reminds me the movie Source Code.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So what you are asking is, "If you were tricked into thinking that you were a complete body rather than a shell avatar would you point to the shell avatar when asked where you are?" Of course you would, you have been tricked into thinking that your complete body is there.

It is a trick "from the outside", if and only if you know better. But my argument is that, for every practical purpose, if you don't know you are in an avatar, you would point to your head (the pretended brain) when asked "where is your experience?".

Absent the trick, I would certainly state that I was in the vat. Especially since if my shell avatar is destroyed I could always get another, but if my brain was destroyed I would not be able to be revived.

This is weird, isn't it. I know we feel the necessity of doing it, but, I insist that it is only a belief, not a fact. And by fact I mean "directly evident from the experience". You would have to make experiments in order to prove it.

Now if I was a set of thought algorithms and memory recordings uploaded into a machine I might be able to load from a backup. But that is a different issue.

Indeed

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes, that (underlined part) is what I'm saying, although I'm not labeling it "apprehension", I just used a dictionary definition to find some common ground. I fail to see how that experience can take place in the whole body. I simply don't understand that, given our knowledge about human physiology. Sure one could say that the whole computer does the computing, but I find that deliberately vague in our context. It is the cpu that does the processing, and that is what we (at least I) are talking about after all. Other parts of the computer/body have different tasks.

Well, the whole body is sensible, from toe to head. Every part of it, with more or less detail, is able to provide sensations of temperature, density, texture, pain, etc. So, if the whole body is the source of the experiences, and consciousness is based on them, it is logical to assume that the whole body is part of it. I see no mystery. In the computer example, no, the CPU does nothing UNLESS IT IS CONNECTED TO THE REST OF THE COMPUTER. Otherwise, is just a collection of transistors.

And by "for all practical purposes" you mean lacking the knowledge of how things "really" (sorry!) are. As I said, this hypothetical has two answers depending on the perspective - If Neo doesn't know he's a brain in a vat, then Neo doesn't know he's a brain in a vat. While actually he is a brain in a vat, as we know. His simulation may even be indistinguishable from reality. The experience is still "located" in the brain (even if unbeknownst to Neo). I believe I already made a distinction between the content of an experience (which is what you are experiencing, what's it about) and the experience itself (the comprehension/apprehension of your sensory data). Would you find that distinction incorrect ? I think it's rather helpful to clarify what we are talking about.

LOL! You have to resort to "how things really..:" I know, the temptation is way to big. The problem (AND THIS GOES FOR EVERYONE IN THE DISCUSSION) is that we are accustomed to have an ontology, we are used to take for granted that there most be an ontology. Well, my ideas are based on the assumption that we don't need any ontology, which, of course, its perfectly compatible with Model Dependent Realism. That said, some philosophers of mind have worked on the same model you rise, differenciating the "content" of the experience from the experience. IMO, this is nonsensical. The experience is based, per definition, on its contents.

Let's say we live in the world of Neo, inside the matrix. Now, if that world has similar knowledge to ours, and we are limited to that knowledge, the place we would point to where the experience takes place would still be the brain (even though that's a "fake" brain inside the simulation, but only our machine overlords know that). This is basically what I'm arguing. It's irrelevant where you subjectively believe you are. If you have a brain, that's where the magic happens. Senses can be fooled.

I understand your point, mine is exactly the opposite; The ONLY thing we have, is our subjectivity. We live immerse in our EXPERIENCE, not in "the universe" as this last one is a construct (a model) designed to accommodate the experience. Again, I most point to Model Dependent Realism articles in order for this to be clearer.

Regarding your last sentence, I argue that the magic happens where the brain meets the senses, not before, not after.

Umm. Why even then bring that pseudo-problem up?

Because those problems only arise if we sustain some form of naive realism.

The bottom line is it's irrelevant what a third party lacks in knowledge when we know something is true - then that something is true. In fact, already the nature of this kind of hypotheticals inevitable generates a "real" knowledge, as opposed to the limited knowledge of the subject of the hypothetical. It then makes no sense to say there is no "really", when we have two sets of different knowledge.

Ultimately, there are no "truths". Either our models represent the observations or they do not. But if another model represents the same observations we cannot determine if one model is "better" than the other. It is a futile exercise.

You seem to be arguing only from the perspective of an unsuspecting victim of a hypothetical, which gets rather solipsistic. If Ben the Farmer doesn't know that facebook exists, then facebook doesn't exist. Because for him, for every practical purpose, it doesn't exist? Really?

Not solipsistic at all, there are other beings around us, from animals to other humans and (most likely) other forms of life in the universe. Regarding Ben, yes, it is true, FOR HIM FB does not exists. If he is introduced to it, merely by someone talking about it, at that point he is presented with the first clue, or evidence, that might lead him to experience it.

Sure, you would say that it is matter of incomplete knowledge, and that FB "really exists"... and again, I would bring Model Dependent Realism to the table

Always a pleasure
Teapot

Same here.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes I would think I was on the train. You're not wrong about this particular exercise, however your extrapolation is obscenely wrong.

Sorry, it is not. It appears to be only if you insist to hold some form of naive realism as the background scenario.

My objections are NOT speculative by the way, they are informed through neuroanatomy. There is a peripheral nervous system which relays to the CNS, which THEN relays that information to areas of your brain. You can forgo the PNS entirely and just stimulate from that relay area of the brain (thalamus) for sensory information. You also forget that there are areas of the brain that work entirely within the CNS, such as the limbic system. Those are entirely within the brain and are a part of your consciousness, no external body required. A LOT of your consciousness arises purely within the CNS.

And again, my point is perfectly clear, in your own words, you need to STIMULATE the thalamus (or any other area, you can go as deep as you like) in order for the brain to react to the stimuli. In case you have noticed, THAT'S MY POINT, so, please, stop committing this fallacy of appeal to the authority. Now, if no input whatsoever is entering the CNS, then (I would argue) there would be no consciousness at all, and yes, the biological way to stimulate a brain is using a body.

This is not a belief, this is an informed opinion, and I'm starting to think you need to read up on neuroanatomy =\

Please read about logical fallacies. You are now committing ad hominem. Oh, and an informed opinion... is a belief.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So what we're going to Ship of Theseus the human mind now?

If my brain is in a jar but my body is somewhere else, then I'm in two places. That ain't that hard a concept. If I was to take the engine out of your car and put it somewhere and the frame of your car somewhere else you'd understand that. This is no different.

If my brain perceives my sense of self to be somewhere else because it's been put into a situation it never evolved to comprehend, the I'm perceiving things wrongly.

You are in your brain. Period.

Wrongly according to what? You are simply perceiving, and making judgements with the info at hand. Exactly what we do all the time. I will answer my question to you: Wrong in relation to a knowledge you have that it is not available for the subject in the train. For every practical purpose, if you were that person, you would claim to be in your head.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yup. Reminds me the movie Source Code.

FANTASTIC movie BTW!!! I loved it.

 

[Lowpro]

And again, my point is perfectly clear, in your own words, you need to STIMULATE the thalamus (or any other area, you can go as deep as you like) in order for the brain to react to the stimuli. In case you have noticed, THAT'S MY POINT, so, please, stop committing this fallacy of appeal to the authority. Now, if no input whatsoever is entering the CNS, then (I would argue) there would be no consciousness at all, and yes, the biological way to stimulate a brain is using a body.

There'd be a reduced consciousness, a "consciousness, but not as you know it" again several CNS faculties do not need the body or its information, though they do exacerbate physiological responses that enhance a particular sensation sometimes, so overall if you're conscious, you're quite dull. The CNS does a LOT of work up there effecting consciousness, the removal of the body wouldn't remove consciousness it would just make it less robust. At what point can you remove more to practically eliminate consciousness? Nobody is quite sure, but I recommend "The Quest For Consciousness" by Christof Koch (He was in the BBC Horizon vid BTW) if you want to learn more about the NCC.

Please read about logical fallacies. You are now committing ad hominem. Oh, and an informed opinion... is a belief.

You don't know much about neuroanatomy and I called you out on it, it's hardly an ad hominem. Do you tell off doctors when they give you their informed opinions?

ETA: I agree with this btw

I understand your point, mine is exactly the opposite; The ONLY thing we have, is our subjectivity. We live immerse in our EXPERIENCE, not in "the universe" as this last one is a construct (a model) designed to accommodate the experience. Again, I most point to Model Dependent Realism articles in order for this to be clearer.

Regarding your last sentence, I argue that the magic happens where the brain meets the senses, not before, not after.

As much as I agree with it, I'm starting to wonder how you define consciousness. I disagree that it's defined by experiences alone; experiences will lead to a more robust consciousness assuming certain faculties exist, memory being a pretty big one. And you wouldn't have a robust memory without a body, probably.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

So, people paralyzed from the neck down with congenital analgesia (with anhidrosis), CIPA, cannot be conscious while they are dreaming in their sleep?

 

[Ignosticist]

... so, in a general sense, if I wanted to point out to the "consciousness" of someone.. all I need to do is point right to his/her head. It is right there, inside the brain. In other words, the experiences are located in space/time just like a rock is (as a corollary, they would be a kind of physical object). Is this what (some of you) are saying?

... so, in a general sense, if I wanted to point out to the "Software" of a computer.. all I need to do is point right to its disk. It is right there, inside the disk. In other words, the data is located in space/time just like a rock is (as a corollary, they would be a kind of physical object). Is this what (some of you) are saying?

YES

You don't think so?

 

[H'ethetheth]

... so, in a general sense, if I wanted to point out to the "Software" of a computer.. all I need to do is point right to its disk. It is right there, inside the disk. In other words, the data is located in space/time just like a rock is (as a corollary, they would be a kind of physical object). Is this what (some of you) are saying?

YES

You don't think so?

Yes, and I think the point is that the software (or the calculation process) is not able to locate itself, nor does it have to take place where, say, an attached GPS sensor says it is.

To which I would say: Yes, Bodhi, but what of it?

With this set of definitions, there is no contradiction in saying "I'm on a train, but my mind is in a vat."