Subjectivity and Science

[Nick227]

Personal identity is informational. Information is substrate-neutral. There is no such thing as an illusion of information. A mirage of a lake is not a lake, but a mirage of a paragraph of text is a paragraph of text.

So if people believe they have personal identity, if they say they experience it, then they do.

Hi Pixy,

I am not disputing the existence of the experience of personal identity. I am saying that if you act to deepen your self-awareness you will become aware that it is not an innate phenomena. It is constructed by the mind. It is a filter through which the mind processes a non-dual reality, and this filter creates the experience of limited selfhood and thus allows objectivity.

Good grief. Everything validates the concept of limited selfhood. It's not limited to humans, it's not limited to creatures with brains, it's not even limited to living things.

If I put you under a general anaesthetic, your consciousness goes away, not anyone else's. The world is unchanged apart from that.

It is not that it belongs to someone else, rather that it belongs to no one. There isn't any identity for it to belong to. Limited selfhood is just a concept. It cannot be substantiated empirically.

If I poke a planarian or a venus flytrap with a pin, it's that planarian, that flytrap, that responds. Not you, not me, not the tree outside or the squirrels in the tree.

If I hit a rock with a hammer, that rock breaks, not the rock next to it, or the one a mile away. It doesn't start to rain frogs, or turn from day into night, and nothing is inscribed upon the sky in blazing letters. The rock breaks.

None of these phenomena validate personal identity.

Nick

 

[JoeEllison]

I am not disputing the existence of the experience of personal identity.

Good. That means you can stop typing now.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi DD,

I'm saying...no possession. Can you demonstrate that the thoughts passing through the mind have possession? Not that they belong to someone else, but that they have possession at all. The assumption "my thoughts" arises but have you examined it to see if it can be substantiated?

Nick

Hi Nick,

You still assume to know what I think?

I am a materialist nihilist pagan buddhist.

There is no mind, there is a brain.

Possesion is another thought construct, therefore it is limited in meaning and validity by usage.

Your last question is not a meaningful one. The experience of thoughts and perceptions is what it is. behaviorism is for me the only way out the solipistic trap of muddled wandering.

I am a p-zombie, I have all the attributes of consciousness but I am not conscious.

The bounded nature of individual thoughts is an apparent behavioral observation. So far there is no evidence to demonstarte that 'thoughts' are not a process inside the organic brain. If we are BIV (Brains in Vats) it doesn't matter either. The world appears to exist. And it appears to be consistent.

 

[Dancing David]

I am not saying they are shared. I'm asking you to locate where this experience that the thoughts are yours is coming from. Not that they might belong to someone else, rather that they have any possession in the first place. Do you see what I mean?

A brain creates thoughts. Yet why should these thoughts appear to have possession? And is this experience that they do have possession ultimately valid, or merely assumed? This is what I'm asking.

Nick

Um, it would appear that the subjective experiences I have are limited to the apparent physical body.

It would appear that sunjective experiences are effected by the physical body.

I have no evidence that would indicate that my subjective experience or that of others is not limited to a physical body.

There is no evidence of subjective experience outside a brain.

So until further data presents itself it is a moot point.

There may be something outside the universe, but it is a moot point.
There may or may not be possesion, I am not the one using the term, you are, it is a moot point.

It appears that thoughts are products of bounded organic systems. The appaerance is all that we have to work with. The rest is moot semantics. possesion of thought is not meaningful. Thought appears to exist and appears to be bounded by brains.

 

[Dancing David]

It is not so much use for making toasters, no. But if you want to start to grasp the nature of reality, the nature of truth, it is eminently useful. Of course, to validate this you would need to try it and see. It is subjective investigation.

Nick

And perhaps you are bold to assume that people have not made those investigations.

Staring into the flashlight of enlightement is not so useful.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, I don't know what isotropy is, so I can't discuss it.

What I do understand is that for something to be considered objective there needs to be a clear sense of boundary - an object and a subject. This boundary is constructed by the mind. It is not real in the way that sensory experience is real. It is a filter through which sensory information passes and, hey presto, the experience of objectivity arises.

Nick

Isotropy is the axiom that events are the same across space and time. What effects an object at one place and time will have similar effect across space and time.

You are also using the terms subject and object in a very hide bound fashion.

In an experiement one tries to control variables. There does not have to be this artificial boundary that you are suggesting. While that is perhaps what is taught in school , it is rather an undeveloped POV.

It does not matter to the rubidium atoms in a cooling capture and magnetic evaporative chamber that become Bose-Einstien Condensate if you call them subject or object. They still appear to assume the same waveform.

 

[Dancing David]

I figure at some point everybody wants to know - what actually is true? At that point there's the option to look at the assumptions they've been making since they were about 6 months old. Not because it's necessarily useful, but because, actually, you wanna know. You're not going to be able to tell anyone what it's like, you can point your finger but that's about it. You're not going to win any nobel prizes or get a load of acclaim. It's just because actually, when it all comes down, you just want to know. For you.

I mean, personally, I still try and get a bit of acclaim for it here and there.

Nick

Truth is like belief , another bugaboo.

I have an apparent life, that is good enough for me.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am not disputing the existence of the experience of personal identity. I am saying that if you act to deepen your self-awareness you will become aware that it is not an innate phenomena.

No. You imagine you experience the awareness that it is not an innate phenomenon. But as I have demonstrate (see: anaesthetic, general; worms, flat; flytrap, venus; rocks, broken) it is inescapably innate.

It is constructed by the mind. It is a filter through which the mind processes a non-dual reality, and this filter creates the experience of limited selfhood and thus allows objectivity.

Wrong.

It is not that it belongs to someone else, rather that it belongs to no one.

What's this "belongs to"? I don't care who it "belongs to".

If I apply a general anaesthetic to the body of the individual labelled "Nick227", the consciousness associated with that body is switched off. No other consciousness is affected. Nor does applying a general anaesthetic to any other body affect the consciousness associated with the individual labelled "Nick227".

There isn't any identity for it to belong to. Limited selfhood is just a concept. It cannot be substantiated empirically.

I just substantiated it empirically.

None of these phenomena validate personal identity.

No. They establish the physical basis of limited selfhood.

 

[volatile]

Nick... please read some books on the subject of conciousness. "Conversations on Consciousness", edited by Susan Blackmore, is an excellent starting point...

 

[JoeEllison]

The bounded nature of individual thoughts is an apparent behavioral observation. So far there is no evidence to demonstarte that 'thoughts' are not a process inside the organic brain. If we are BIV (Brains in Vats) it doesn't matter either. The world appears to exist. And it appears to be consistent.

What I've always wondered is, since everything behaves in such a consistent way, why do people insist that there must be something more than what is very clearly apparent?

 

[Nick227]

Hi Nick,

You still assume to know what I think?

I am a materialist nihilist pagan buddhist.

There is no mind, there is a brain.

Possesion is another thought construct, therefore it is limited in meaning and validity by usage.

Your last question is not a meaningful one. The experience of thoughts and perceptions is what it is. behaviorism is for me the only way out the solipistic trap of muddled wandering.

I am a p-zombie, I have all the attributes of consciousness but I am not conscious.

The bounded nature of individual thoughts is an apparent behavioral observation. So far there is no evidence to demonstarte that 'thoughts' are not a process inside the organic brain. If we are BIV (Brains in Vats) it doesn't matter either. The world appears to exist. And it appears to be consistent.

Hi David,

I am not presuming to know what you think. I am saying - how can you demonstrate that the thoughts, currently passing through what you experience as "your" mind, have possession at all? That they belong to anyone, or better, any limited entity? The experience you are apparently having, that the thoughts passing through the mind are "yours," is being constructed by the mind. The thoughts pass anyway, the senses take in information anyway, but the notion that any of this is happening to any personal identity cannot be empirically validated.

This affects nothing physical. The world is the same. All the experiences are sensorily the same. It's simply that the notion that these experiences are happening to any personal identity is dissipated. They are just happening.

Nick

 

[JoeEllison]

Hi David,

I am not presuming to know what you think. I am saying - how can you demonstrate that the thoughts, currently passing through what you experience as "your" mind, have possession at all? That they belong to anyone, or better, any limited entity? The experience you are apparently having, that the thoughts passing through the mind are "yours," is being constructed by the mind. The thoughts pass anyway, the senses take in information anyway, but the notion that any of this is happening to any limited entity cannot be empirically validated.

This affects nothing physical. The world is the same. All the experiences are sensorily the same. It's simply that the notion that these experiences are happening to any limited entity is dissipated. They are just happening.

Nick

If it affects nothing physical, and the world is the same, what purpose does it serve to make the distinction between what appears to be so, and what is actually so? If there's no way to tell the difference, what does it matter?

 

[Nick227]

No. You imagine you experience the awareness that it is not an innate phenomenon. But as I have demonstrate (see: anaesthetic, general; worms, flat; flytrap, venus; rocks, broken) it is inescapably innate.

Hi Pixy,

How do you know these things possess a sense of personal identity?

If I apply a general anaesthetic to the body of the individual labelled "Nick227", the consciousness associated with that body is switched off. No other consciousness is affected. Nor does applying a general anaesthetic to any other body affect the consciousness associated with the individual labelled "Nick227".

I don't understand how this has anything to do with the experience of personal identity. Can you explain more?

I just substantiated it empirically.

I don't really see how observing a venus fly-trap plant closing on a fly empirically demonstrates that the human sense of having a personal identity is valid. Could you explain more?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

If it affects nothing physical, and the world is the same, what purpose does it serve to make the distinction between what appears to be so, and what is actually so? If there's no way to tell the difference, what does it matter?

Hi Joe,

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant! One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

How do you know these things possess a sense of personal identity?

I don't.

They do, however, conclusively demonstrate the physical nature of limited selfhood.

I don't understand how this has anything to do with the experience of personal identity. Can you explain more?

It doesn't. It does, however, conclusively demonstrate the physical nature of limited selfhood.

I don't really see how observing a venus fly-trap plant closing on a fly empirically demonstrates that the human sense of having a personal identity is valid. Could you explain more?

It doesn't. It does, however, conclusively demonstrate the physical nature of limited selfhood.

We demonstrate that the human sense of having a personal identity is valid by asking people if they have a personal identity. If they say yes, then it's valid. If they say no, they're lying.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am not presuming to know what you think. I am saying - how can you demonstrate that the thoughts, currently passing through what you experience as "your" mind, have possession at all? That they belong to anyone, or better, any limited entity? The experience you are apparently having, that the thoughts passing through the mind are "yours," is being constructed by the mind. The thoughts pass anyway, the senses take in information anyway, but the notion that any of this is happening to any limited entity cannot be empirically validated.

David's thoughts are David's thoughts because they are generated by David's brain. If we take away David's brain, David has no more thoughts.

And the term "David" is just a label attached to a physically distinct assembly of matter.

Possession? Belonging? Not relevant. Possibly not even meaningful.

 

[PixyMisa]

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant! One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.

Ah, insanity. Is there nothing it can't do?

 

[JoeEllison]

Hi Joe,

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant! One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.

Nick

Yeah, insanity must be really fun!

So, how do you show, objectively, the difference between what you claim being a consequence of "non-duality," idle fantasy and imagination, and pure nutball craziness?

 

[JoeEllison]

Ah, insanity. Is there nothing it can't do?

It can't be of any use towards adding to our knowledge of the universe, can it?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction.

The problem with this argument is that you use one label (mind) in order to rid yourself from another label (self). But on the positive side thou: one label less to shoot down in the future.

One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.

Who experienced this ‘never born’ and ‘never die’ awareness?