Yes, and way back there was the heart, as Aristotle pointed it out. That shows that its a belief, don't you think? Because, and this is why imaginary experiments, like the one I used, come handy, there is no "cyborg" at the train, it is your body without your brain, and so, if I was talking to you (to your body) at the train... talking about this, you would be compelled to answer, that your experience (in your words) is "behind your eyes". Would you be right or wrong asserting that?
Well, it kinda is a cyborg when you have a body transmitting sense data to your out-of-body brain through some kind of advanced technology. Or is that... psych abilities, magic? In any case, that's besides the point, but what I would like to stress here is that it is by no ordinary definition a normal human being. Keeping that in mind, that hypothetical scenario implicitly assumes common knowledge from that very cyborg (that brains cannot be operating their bodies from a distance) and at the same time ignorance (he has no idea his brain isn't inside his body, and in fact the previous common knowledge is false). Yes, I know this is the whole point of your hypothetical. My point is that his knowledge is unusable in this situation, because it is either deceptive or lacking. And while the responses in this thread were based on knowledge, that cyborg on that train can only answer from his feelings, not from a position of knowledge. So, overall, I don't know what that situation is supposed to demonstrate. That perception is deceptive? Agreed.
If that body was me on the train, given those assumptions, I would naturally point to my head, yes - because of my previous common knowledge that humans have brains in their skulls which operate bodies. And I would be wrong on that particular instance. This is what I meant by deception and ignorance. I think someone already brought up dreaming as an illustrative example.
Exactly, how is that meaningless or misleading? Your "sensation of being you" would be at location Y, not at location X, as the first answers to my OP were implying.
Ok, I'm trying to be extra careful here about the words used, and since English is not my first language, maybe I'm missing something. What I mean by meaningless or ambiguous is that "the location of experience" can refer to either the content of the experience (what the experience is about), the experience itself, or mean absolutely nothing, since experience is not a physical object that can have a location at all.
The
content of the experience is 'me being on the train', the experience itself happens in the brain. What does it mean that an experience
happens in the brain? It means the brain constructs, to the best of its abilities, a coherent subjective viewpoint from the sense data it gets and presents it to itself for a feedback (qualia if you will). There is nothing (experience-wise) going on in the body on the train except sensory input and reactions to whatever output brain sends.
I agree in the implications for gaming! Of course, to a very small degree, when you are playing a FPS "you" are located in a virtual reality, in certain (albeit illusory) space/time, with certain objects around you, etc. The experience is happening at the FPS (to the extent current technology allows). Now, that it is instantiated by your brain, does not locate it in your brain, there is a difference.
Yes, but I would say "you" are not located in that virtual reality, although you perceive yourself to be. And I would say the experience is happening in the brain, all the sense data just deceives you into thinking otherwise. I think this is the crux of our disagreement. Maybe we should define "experience"
Oh, believe me, I have been at the JREF long enough to know. Many members are naive realists, they just don't like to find out that that's what they are, and begin to act as if they were being attacked somehow. But as it was pointed out earlier in the thread, "naive" is not a derogatory word.
Fair enough. I can't really speak for others, but seems naive realism encompasses beliefs most skeptics wouldn't profess.
Still, you mention an important point "driven by scientific knowledge not a philosophical ideology". I beg to differ... there is not 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.
I agree to an extent. What I meant is that the responses seem to stem from a knowledge base that we currently have (mostly inductive experimentation I guess), rather than via analytical deduction from postulates of an ideology/theoretical model. But that point is moot now that I suspect our disagreement isn't factual, but more of a semantic one.
It was a good post. Thanks.
Thanks
I enjoy this kind of hypotheticals.
I'm genunely interested in see if you can't point any "woo" stuff in my posts, yes, anything "supernatural", or "magical" or "mystical" stuff... being interested in reading your ideas is not attacking you, is it?
