Former conspiracy believer here

[Nick227]

I can't see that this has anything to do with it personally. That an phenomena can be made to be split in half through a physical act does not demonstrate that it arises physically. Even in conditions such a Multiple Personality Disorder there is nothing to suggest that any of the experienced senses of selfhood are actually real.

Uh, Nick, by the nature of selfhood, if it is experienced, it is real.

Hi PM,

According to systemic interpretation, that is correct. However, I feel it's necessary to point out that systemic analysis proceeds from the position that what is present, what is experienced, is real. It is somewhat of a loaded dice here.

Why don't you simply find a medical condition or a brain lesion that can be made where there is no sense of personal selfhood, where this sense is removed? I think this would be great proof that the experience of personal identity arises from the structure of the brain.

You have been presented with multiple conditions that drastically alter the way we experience personal identity - even one that creates new identities - and you ignore them all. What difference would this hypothetical condition make, and why?

Actually, as far as I'm aware, you've presented a couple of cases, corpus callosum agenesis and alien hand syndrome. In both it can be that individual limbs appear to have a mind, or agenda, of their own and the degree of conscious control over the limb seems diminished. They are interesting here, but in both it seems that there is no question in the mind that the limb does belong to the individual. It is simply that some of its behaviour appears to be being governed by a part of the brain which, through injury, has become somewhat disassociated from the whole.

I am stating that there is a much better way to substantiate that the experience of having a personal identity is physical in origin. That is to find an instance where a condition or cut in the brain's anatomy removes the experience of personal identity whilst leaving all other functions intact. You ask why. It's because this most replicates the scenario proposed.

Nick

 

[chipmunk stew]

They don't belong to anyone! They are just thoughts. They have a quality to them which seduces the mind into believing that there exists a personal self who is having them. Yet they are just thoughts. It's amazing. No one is in there. No one is reading this. It is just being read.

Nick

It sounds like you're arguing about the nature of personal identity, not the fact of personal identity.

This is being read by a distinct biological organism with self-awareness. This is a fact. I don't get how you can argue against it.

 

[Nick227]

It sounds like you're arguing about the nature of personal identity, not the fact of personal identity.

This is being read by a distinct biological organism with self-awareness. This is a fact. I don't get how you can argue against it.

Hi CS,

As I see it, I am arguing more about the experience of personal identity. That this is a distinct biological organism with some degree of self-awareness is not disputed. However, the manner in which it attributes identity to the body, feelings and thoughts, is currently being re-evaluated! Because I started to become more aware of the process of thought, it became clear that my previous beliefs about selfhood had simply been assumed and untested.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

Of course "you" are thought. Haven't you been paying attention: SELF-awareness.

But I am experiencing thoughts. If I am thoughts, what then is experiencing them?

SELF-awareness, Nick. SELF-awareness. The thoughts are aware of themselves, that's the whole point.

Are you saying that you don't experience thoughts? I must admit that I had rather assumed that everyone did.

No, that's not what I'm saying, but I'm not surprised you think that it is since you made the same mistake with Pixy.

I'm not challenging the idea that thoughts arise in the brain. I'm saying that the brain's notion that they are "my thoughts" is assumption. The brain is assuming a sense of selfhood inconsistent with perceptual reality.

Nick, there is no other alternative. You have failed to show that what you say is true, and you've failed to provide that alternative. What's more, you admit that the thoughts arise from the brain but you question whether they belong to it ?

Actually, as far as I'm aware, you've presented a couple of cases, corpus callosum agenesis and alien hand syndrome. In both it can be that individual limbs appear to have a mind, or agenda, of their own and the degree of conscious control over the limb seems diminished.

The "limbs" don't have a mind, Nick. Apparently you didn't read anything that was posted. The two brain hemispheres have a mind, each.

They are interesting here, but in both it seems that there is no question in the mind that the limb does belong to the individual.

Which individual ? There are now two of them.

 

[AngrySteve]

I gotta say, that when i was in my late teens / early twenties, i got a book written by David Icke, and it interested me. Pretty bizzare stuff, but i had a hunger to find out more, so i used to check his website, and Jeff Rense's website (UFO's & Conspiracy Theories)

Indeed, if you want to be wise to what these people are saying, you do have to read their books

As i gradually got older, my views started to change, i saw inconsistencies in what these people were saying, and never any retractions made (eg - Prison Planet website ran with "missile pods under the planes" 9/11 story)

When a headline went up at Rense's website "Bush Authorised the 9/11 Attacks" - "Blair ordered the London Bombings", that was the last straw, and i've never visted that site since.

Serious Allegations without evidence, i'm surprised either Blair or Bush haven't sued to be honest

Behind the scenes, i think you'll find these people are jealous:

More Famous
More Wealthy
Hold more power and influence

The Global Elite are NOT in control of our minds / lives

Terence McKenna once said "the reality is that no-one is really in charge"

He's more likely to be correct, especially when you see how inept the people 'in charge' are

 

[Nick227]

SELF-awareness, Nick. SELF-awareness. The thoughts are aware of themselves, that's the whole point.

Hi Belz,

I have yet to hear anyone claim that self-awareness means the thoughts are aware of themselves. This is definitely a new one on me and I am trained and work in a school of psychological thought that is based around self-awareness.

Thoughts are the results of neural interactions. How precisely is a thought going to be aware of itself, or another thought?

No, that's not what I'm saying, but I'm not surprised you think that it is since you made the same mistake with Pixy.

Nick, there is no other alternative. You have failed to show that what you say is true, and you've failed to provide that alternative. What's more, you admit that the thoughts arise from the brain but you question whether they belong to it ?

That something emerges from something else does not mean that it belongs to it. It is associated with it, it may be the product of it, but it does not mean that it, of necessity, belongs to it. However, this is not really the point. I am not disputing that thoughts arise as a result of mechanical and neuropharmacological interactions in the brain. I'm saying that the experience that they are "my thoughts" is created by the mind through a process as yet unestablished, but not based around empiric evaluation.

The "limbs" don't have a mind, Nick. Apparently you didn't read anything that was posted. The two brain hemispheres have a mind, each.

Saying that something has "a mind of its own" is an expression over here. It does not mean that it actually necessarily possesses self-determination, merely that it behaves as though it does. Perhaps this wasn't the best expression for me to pick in this context.

Which individual ? There are now two of them.

There are not two of them. It is simply that the mind processes information in a more dissociated manner from that of someone with a more intact corpus callosum. If you want to study Asperger's or other variants of autism you will see many variations on this theme, yet the individual still possesses a coherent sense of personal identity.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

I am reading and following what you write, PM.

No. No you're not.

That is why I stated that I experience thoughts whilst you apparently do not.

Wrong again.

This accounts for the difference between our two perspectives.

Nope. The difference is that your perspective is incoherent, whereas mine is empirical.

In becoming aware of the process of thinking, so arises the understanding that I am not thought. Indeed, if there is an "I," then it is clearly that which is experiencing thought, not the thoughts themselves.

Still wrong. In being aware of yourself, you are merely thinking about thinking. The end. There is nothing more needed to explain this.

Thus the notion that personal identity is thought-based and arising from the physical hardware of the brain is dismissed.

Thus nothing of the sort.

This is why I am saying that personal identification is not simply thought-based, rather it arises from some quality in the thought that causes the mind to believe that it has personal identity.

And I am pointing out that this does not follow from any fact you have put forward.

Experiencing only a lifetime of identified thoughts, this notion would naturally seem a crazy or just ridiculous proposal, but if and when there is a shift in the phenomenon of identification, the change in perspective reveals the presence of the assumption that could not be imagined before.

No, Nick. The association of thoughts with individual brains and bodies is empirically and universally verified. You're just making stuff up.

 

[PixyMisa]

According to systemic interpretation, that is correct. However, I feel it's necessary to point out that systemic analysis proceeds from the position that what is present, what is experienced, is real. It is somewhat of a loaded dice here.

No, Nick. Cogito ergo sum. Objectivity is an assumption; personal identity is inherent in anyone or anything that can consider their condition.

 

[Belz...]

Hi Belz,

I have yet to hear anyone claim that self-awareness means the thoughts are aware of themselves. This is definitely a new one on me and I am trained and work in a school of psychological thought that is based around self-awareness.

Then, pray tell, what did you think the "self" in "self-awareness" meant ?

Thoughts are the results of neural interactions. How precisely is a thought going to be aware of itself, or another thought?

How, precisely ? You should be in a better position to answer this question than I, but it seems that is false. I don't think we have the exact answer yet, but that doesn't help you one bit, because it's still, by far, the most rational explanation. Besides, as mentioned countless times before (and ignored just as many times by you), other species have this self-awareness.

That something emerges from something else does not mean that it belongs to it. It is associated with it, it may be the product of it, but it does not mean that it, of necessity, belongs to it.

I see. So, you're not arguing that thoughts are wholly contained within the body that I identify as "mine", but you're rather contesting the very existence of property ?

Saying that something has "a mind of its own" is an expression over here. It does not mean that it actually necessarily possesses self-determination, merely that it behaves as though it does. Perhaps this wasn't the best expression for me to pick in this context.

The "alien hand" is controlled by the opposite brain, which has homicidal tendencies. It sees the other half as an enemy. That wouldn't be possible unless both brains had their own mind.

There are not two of them. It is simply that the mind processes information in a more dissociated manner from that of someone with a more intact corpus callosum.

Then you don't understand the condition. There ARE two individuals. Allow me to explain. You can check the information, yourself.

As you know, each brain receives direct information from one eye, one ear, and controls one hand. The left brain, however, is usually the center of speech, so the right brain can't talk.

If we sever the callosum, give the individual a pen in the left hand and put an eyepath over the right eye, then ask him what his favourite food is, we might get a different answer on paper from the right brain than the left brain gives verbally.

Also, if you put an eyepatch on the right eye, and show a picture of, say, Hitler, to the left eye, and the person reacts with anger, the left brain has no idea whatsoever what's going on. If you ask that person why they got angry, the answer will be nonsensical because the left brain, which is the only one able to answer the question, has to make it up.

This shows, quite effectively, that both brains are completely independant and have their own, different tastes and separate self-awareness.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have yet to hear anyone claim that self-awareness means the thoughts are aware of themselves.

Since that is what I've been saying all along, this proves that you are not reading my posts.

This is definitely a new one on me and I am trained and work in a school of psychological thought that is based around self-awareness.

Yet you have less knowledge of psychology than can be gleaned from a single intro psych lecture chosen at random.

 

[Nick227]

Still wrong. In being aware of yourself, you are merely thinking about thinking. The end. There is nothing more needed to explain this.

Pixy,

You can think about thoughts, for sure. But you can also simply become aware of them. Remain seated, shut your eyes, and watch. Stay watching until you see it. It can take some time. There can be a chain of ideation set off by thoughts, but you can also just watch thought. After a while the sense of personal identity dissipates. It's very relaxing!

At a certain point identification comes back in, the personal self is recreated and you go about your daily business. Objectivity is just a mindset. I can put it on and I can let it slide off. I know the true value of objectivity because I have something to contrast it with, and the value isn't so much. Of course, try and tell this to you, Pixy, who actually believes objectivity is truth, and I wasting my time for sure. You will just have to wait until your body dies to see for a few seconds that objectivity has actually very little to do with anything. I think death is the only experience that will show you the difference between reality and conceptualisation. It doesn't have to be this way.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Then, pray tell, what did you think the "self" in "self-awareness" meant ?

It actually means whatever you conceive it to mean. In a person experiencing rising self-awareness their sense of selfhood expands until they are aware of the true meaning and significance of the ego.

How, precisely ? You should be in a better position to answer this question than I, but it seems that is false.

You just sit and watch. You can read up on neuropharmacology on Medline if you wish, but the answer is a lot closer by. These are thoughts. Here's one. Here's another. The passage of identified thoughts through the mind creates and sustains the experience of relative selfhood. When the thoughts slow down, when they become more spread out, or the identification drops, the sense of personal selfhood dissipates.

I don't think we have the exact answer yet, but that doesn't help you one bit, because it's still, by far, the most rational explanation.

If the best rationalism can come up with is "the thoughts experience themselves" then that's about the most damning indictment of science I've ever heard! For God's sake, you just sit down and watch them.

I see. So, you're not arguing that thoughts are wholly contained within the body that I identify as "mine",

Who identifies? Who is doing this identifying?

The "alien hand" is controlled by the opposite brain, which has homicidal tendencies. It sees the other half as an enemy. That wouldn't be possible unless both brains had their own mind.

I can't comment on this.

Nick

 

[chipmunk stew]

Pixy,

You can think about thoughts, for sure. But you can also simply become aware of them. Remain seated, shut your eyes, and watch. Stay watching until you see it. It can take some time. There can be a chain of ideation set off by thoughts, but you can also just watch thought. After a while the sense of personal identity dissipates. It's very relaxing!

At a certain point identification comes back in, the personal self is recreated and you go about your daily business. Objectivity is just a mindset. I can put it on and I can let it slide off. I know the true value of objectivity because I have something to contrast it with, and the value isn't so much. Of course, try and tell this to you, Pixy, who actually believes objectivity is truth, and I wasting my time for sure. You will just have to wait until your body dies to see for a few seconds that objectivity has actually very little to do with anything. I think death is the only experience that will show you the difference between reality and conceptualisation. It doesn't have to be this way.

Nick

What value is there in shedding personal identity and letting objectivity slide off (read: meditating), other than a few moments relaxation?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Hi CS,

As I see it, I am arguing more about the experience of personal identity. That this is a distinct biological organism with some degree of self-awareness is not disputed. However, the manner in which it attributes identity to the body, feelings and thoughts, is currently being re-evaluated! Because I started to become more aware of the process of thought, it became clear that my previous beliefs about selfhood had simply been assumed and untested.

Nick

This is a terribly vague and abstract argument, then.

 

[Nick227]

What value is there in shedding personal identity and letting objectivity slide off (read: meditating), other than a few moments relaxation?

Hi CS,

I have come to understand that objectivity is simply a mindset placed over that which is a priori real. I consider this of immense personal value, because without it I would be simply trapped in a machine, believing in personal free will, yet never enjoying the fact that it does not exist!

It has also shown me the value of subjective science. Objective science can study only in an arena accessible to others, or to machinery. Thus the inner life of the mind is largely inaccessible to objective scrutiny, because only you experience it. It has progressively dropped off the scientific map ever since The Royal Society, an organisation created by Alchemists, came into being.

Of course, neuroscience is exciting and can make some inroads, but it is not like Alchemy. Compared to Alchemy, neuroscience is a long way behind on the starting blocks. The Alchemists understood that he who could control the force of identification, the force they termed the Great Magical Agent, could control the whole of human destiny. If you can apply the GMA to only certain strands of thought, then only those will be acted on by the mind. You have complete power to control destiny.

For sure, in perhaps 10 or 20 years the neuroscientists may get there. I read exciting things about regulating glutamate transmission, GABA inhibition and how the mind's reward and seeking circuitry, its dopamine system, is affected by these things. It's close, but I don't quite make out the cigar yet. I hope they get there, but if it happens they will still be some 2,000 years behind Hermes Trismegistos.

When you ask "what's the value" I have to ask you - Do you realise that the values of objectivity apply only within that mindset? It is a tool you can use to make nice things. It is also of Alchemical value. But it is just a mindset. If you never slacken off the wingnuts, you never get to see this. You never get to find out who you are.

Nick

 

[Miragememories]

Hi CS,

I have come to understand that objectivity is simply a mindset placed over that which is a priori real. I consider this of immense personal value, because without it I would be simply trapped in a machine, believing in personal free will, yet never enjoying the fact that it does not exist!

It has also shown me the value of subjective science. Objective science can study only in an arena accessible to others, or to machinery. Thus the inner life of the mind is largely inaccessible to objective scrutiny, because only you experience it. It has progressively dropped off the scientific map ever since The Royal Society, an organisation created by Alchemists, came into being.

Of course, neuroscience is exciting and can make some inroads, but it is not like Alchemy. Compared to Alchemy, neuroscience is a long way behind on the starting blocks. The Alchemists understood that he who could control the force of identification, the force they termed the Great Magical Agent, could control the whole of human destiny. If you can apply the GMA to only certain strands of thought, then only those will be acted on by the mind. You have complete power to control destiny.

For sure, in perhaps 10 or 20 years the neuroscientists may get there. I read exciting things about regulating glutamate transmission, GABA inhibition and how the mind's reward and seeking circuitry, its dopamine system, is affected by these things. It's close, but I don't quite make out the cigar yet. I hope they get there, but if it happens they will still be some 2,000 years behind Hermes Trismegistos.

When you ask "what's the value" I have to ask you - Do you realise that the values of objectivity apply only within that mindset? It is a tool you can use to make nice things. It is also of Alchemical value. But it is just a mindset. If you never slacken off the wingnuts, you never get to see this. You never get to find out who you are.

Nick

When did they legalize grass in the UK?

MM

 

[Nick227]

This is a terribly vague and abstract argument, then.

Well, you have to see it. I agree it's not really the stuff of objective study. It is not so much a point of view that you can share with another and they will see it. It's grossly unlikely, unless they have seen it before. It is experiential, not theoretical, but nonetheless can be revealed by simple dialectical enquiry, Socratic method.

Nick

 

[Miragememories]

Well, you have to see it. I agree it's not really the stuff of objective study. It is not so much a point of view that you can share with another and they will see it. It's grossly unlikely, unless they have seen it before. It is experiential, not theoretical, but nonetheless can be revealed by simple dialectical enquiry, Socratic method.

Nick

Is that to be interpreted as meaning someone with greater experience has more credibility?

MM

 

[Belz...]

You can think about thoughts, for sure. But you can also simply become aware of them. Remain seated, shut your eyes, and watch. Stay watching until you see it. It can take some time. There can be a chain of ideation set off by thoughts, but you can also just watch thought. After a while the sense of personal identity dissipates. It's very relaxing!

It's also hogwash. You can meditate and think you're a pig in the process, but it changes nothing. Being aware of thoughts IS a thought, and you've only claimed otherwise. You're a far cray from showing it.

It actually means whatever you conceive it to mean.

It's a wonder you ever learned English, then.

You just sit and watch. You can read up on neuropharmacology on Medline if you wish, but the answer is a lot closer by.

I don't trust my perceptions. I'd rather trust empirical science, because I couldn't tell if it's my bias guiding me. I guess you skipped that part of science class.

When the thoughts slow down, when they become more spread out, or the identification drops, the sense of personal selfhood dissipates.

So does consciousness. The "observer" you speak of ends at the same time as the thoughts. Do you know someone who's had cardiac arrest ? I do. When there are no thoughts to be observed, the "observer" mysteriously vanishes. Isn't that odd ?

If the best rationalism can come up with is "the thoughts experience themselves" then that's about the most damning indictment of science I've ever heard! For God's sake, you just sit down and watch them.

Argument from incredulity.

Who identifies? Who is doing this identifying?

Itself.

I can't comment on this.

Because you don't understand it or because you don't want to ?

I have come to understand that objectivity is simply a mindset placed over that which is a priori real. I consider this of immense personal value, because without it I would be simply trapped in a machine, believing in personal free will, yet never enjoying the fact that it does not exist!

So, it's a feel-good thing for you ? Welcome to reality, bloke, where your beliefs and hopes are ignored completely.

Of course, neuroscience is exciting and can make some inroads, but it is not like Alchemy. Compared to Alchemy, neuroscience is a long way behind on the starting blocks. The Alchemists understood that he who could control the force of identification, the force they termed the Great Magical Agent

Do you have actual evidence of this ? Or are you making it up. This is the nth time you've claimed this, but you're just typing words, so far.

 

[Belz...]

Well, you have to see it. I agree it's not really the stuff of objective study. It is not so much a point of view that you can share with another and they will see it. It's grossly unlikely, unless they have seen it before. It is experiential, not theoretical, but nonetheless can be revealed by simple dialectical enquiry, Socratic method.

Nick

Circular reasoning, apparently.