Where is your experience?

[DevilsAdvocate]

It is commonly accepted that the brain, somehow, produces the mind, at least in the JREF of course. If this is the case, where is the mind? It is located in the brain? The experience that makes you feel you, its inside your head?

What do you think about it?

Discuss.

The mind is an collective abstraction. This is like asking, “If I have three apples, where is the ‘three’?”

It is commonly accepted that trees, somehow, produce the forest. If this is the case, where is the forest? You can’t see the forest for the trees.

My professor of philosophy of mind put it in terms of a university. A vistor wants to see our university. He is shown the dorms, the classrooms, the administration buildings, the library, the caefteria, the grounds, the sports center. Then the vistor says, “Thank you for showing me all of these things, but where is the university?”

Let’s say I have a wooden chair. It is a chair. You can sit on it. But then I take a chainsaw to it (not while you are sitting on it). It is little pieces of wood that you can’t sit on at all. Then I throw the pieces in a fire. The pieces turn to ash. Then I throw the ash into the wind and the ashes are scattered all over. There is no more chair. What happened to the chair? Where did the “chair” go?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

It's in my ears when I hear, or don't hear, the paper being tossed into the yard in the early morning.
It was in my left big toe the day I opened the door, and the bottom of the door tore off part of the nail.
It moves around my body.

I found poetry.

it's in my ears
when I hear
or don't hear
the paper being tossed
into the yard
in the early morning
it was in my left big toe
the day I opened the door
and the bottom of the door
tore off part of the nail
it moves around my body​

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Feynman had a nice thing about how science can make beautiful things more beautiful because they can be appreciated first on the level of outward beauty that everyone sees and then on further and further levels of beauty that come with a deeper understanding.

A flower is beautiful in it's appearance, but, for instance, an understanding of the co-evolution of flowering plants and pollenating insects adds another layer to that beauty.

I find that to be quite a strong point, but it leads to the view that mythology can also add (false) beauty. There is something beautiful about the idea of Apollo's chariot, and while the sunset may still be beautiful without that (and have another level of beauty when we understand what it really is), it's nevertheless true that there is beauty in ideas.

Personally I think that the universe is, in general, more beautiful that our primitive ideas and stories about it. But those things did (do) have a certain beauty of their own.

Nice post. I am reminded of some of my musician friends who refuse to learn how to play some of their favorite songs. Once they learn to play a song, they can only hear the structure of the song—chord progressions, notes, beats—but can never again actually hear the “song”. This happens frequently in the arts. It is difficult for a comedian to laugh at jokes because they are analyzing the structure of the joke. Artists are praised by other artists for their work because of the structure of their painting, while non-artists only see “something my kid could do”.

There is that “je ne sais quoi” feeling of mysticism that we can apply to any unanalyzed collective abstraction.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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

huh? what on earth does that mean?

and then some even have the nerve to claim that I "fiercely attack" naive realists...

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This part is true, coming from my own experience in learning about what naive realism means. It's not a competing theory nor does it serve to disintegrate what we have as scientific knowledge. It only serves as a "caveat emptor" to the knowledge we have.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that some Naive Realists feel that Model Dependent Realism is a competing theory, when in fact is just a point of view regarding knowledge (exactly what Naive Realism is without the proponents actually realizing it). And so, its postulates come "without guarantee"...? Oh I don't know maybe I misunderstood your post.

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.

Actually this is what Model Dependent Realism is all about... we have no way to know if our perceptions correspond, in any way, to reality, all what matters is that the model is useful. No model is more "real" than other, they are more or less useful, that's about it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

What do you think "materialism" is? What do you think a "World View" is? What do you think a "theory" is?




[SNIP]

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

I think most of us have been Naive Realists at some point, it might be the next step coming from some form of "post religious" beliefs. What I have been arguing for years at the JREF is that Naive Realists ARE NOT Skeptics.

Such position, which apparently the JREF should be all about, is much more adequately represented by Model Dependent Realism.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The mind is to the brain as the movement of the car is to the engine as far as I'm aware.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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

Nice video. I believe some people forget, or are unaware about that every depiction we have about reality is (no matter if we want it or not) sort of a theory of knowledge, or better, an assumption about that certain pseudo arbitrary form of knowledge is the best epistemic depiction we can have about what "reality is".

Of course, every theoretical model brings its own ontology, and what I find amusing is that, most of the time, people is unaware of this fact.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

Indeed, that happens. When Model Dependent Realism came out to the light I was relieved, as it exposes most of my core ideas with the necessary simplicity.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

Actually, this is a good depiction of what Naive Realism is all about. I hope it is clear that it is not a derogatory depiction of a philosophical approach to reality, but just a description. Have you read the article at Wikipedia? There are a few more readings I can recommend.

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

LOL.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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?

The brain is in a vat at a laboratory attached to a machine for its life support, its body its at the train, and there is an advanced remote connection between the body and the brain (sort of an advanced WiFi) And yes, there are at least two questions at hand, where do we (as external observers) point at when we want to say where the subject is. And where does the subject points to when questioned about where "he is".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

Funny thing is that your depiction in itself, and without you being aware of it, IS PHILOSOPHICAL "mumbo jumbo"

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Great post.

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???)

Good questions. I didn't want to go that deep of course, being this the science forum at JREF. The intention is to find out and discuss where actual beliefs are, based on what we know by scientific research.

….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).

I would say that there is a "general consensus" about the identity of a brain to "be" in the brain. But in general I agree that the main problem is that we tend to take for granted that we have indisputable answers to what "experience really is".

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).

And, in the end, I believe it goes even deeper than this. The World View in vogue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view depicts sort of a reality which is (pretty much) what we think about it. We have learned to equate our mental model to what we call reality, with this in mind, every science advancement is always viewed at the scope of the current paradigm, and I believe that the problems start here.

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’.

I loved this part. Yes, I agree. It most be measured against other kind of ontological concepts, not one based (basically) on ancient Greek philosophical works. But I would like you to expand what you mean by "authentic intense" and "dysfunctional indifferent".

….’ 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.

Actually not even that, science is a set of tools, that happen to be the best set of tools we have to manipulate, predict and describe experiences. But most people confuse science with a body of knowledge (the mentioned World View). But yes, I do agree with what you say.

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.

Indeed. Not that this is noted to often, because of the baggage we constantly carry. I often worry about the (apparent) extreme necessity of having a complex World View to "explain" things for us, at an ontological level. That's why I love so much the Model Dependent Realism theoretical approach to reality.

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

LOL.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

Fair enough, you are right. Maybe sometimes I'm to direct. On the other hand, you can't deny that it is fun as we all get "emotionally connected" with the thread, so to speak

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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?

The former, please excuse my modals.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The mind is an collective abstraction. This is like asking, “If I have three apples, where is the ‘three’?”

It is commonly accepted that trees, somehow, produce the forest. If this is the case, where is the forest? You can’t see the forest for the trees.

My professor of philosophy of mind put it in terms of a university. A vistor wants to see our university. He is shown the dorms, the classrooms, the administration buildings, the library, the caefteria, the grounds, the sports center. Then the vistor says, “Thank you for showing me all of these things, but where is the university?”

Let’s say I have a wooden chair. It is a chair. You can sit on it. But then I take a chainsaw to it (not while you are sitting on it). It is little pieces of wood that you can’t sit on at all. Then I throw the pieces in a fire. The pieces turn to ash. Then I throw the ash into the wind and the ashes are scattered all over. There is no more chair. What happened to the chair? Where did the “chair” go?

As much as I like the metaphors they do not apply. I believe there is a lot of confusion regarding this subject, and of course it is expected that it should be that complex, after all, every theory, every belief, every smile, every tear, all the stars and complex models regarding quantum mechanics, all we know, believe feel, it is somehow "contained inside" the little "I", that some people want to render a non existent illusion of some kind. But no, in the end, all we really have are experiences, observations... it is EVERYTHING ELSE which is a projection, an idea, even an illusion.

I found poetry.

it's in my ears
when I hear
or don't hear
the paper being tossed
into the yard
in the early morning
it was in my left big toe
the day I opened the door
and the bottom of the door
tore off part of the nail
it moves around my body​

Yes... sometimes poetry is so much closer.

 

[I Ratant]

I found poetry.

it's in my ears
when I hear
or don't hear
the paper being tossed
into the yard
in the early morning
it was in my left big toe
the day I opened the door
and the bottom of the door
tore off part of the nail
it moves around my body​

.
I approve of that! LOL!!!!!
Waxing anything is not part of my experience, and poetic would be low on that list...

 

[BravesFan]

Logic failed, indeed. I get your name now.

What do you think "materialism" is? What do you think a "World View" is? What do you think a "theory" is?




Hint: You hate it.

look you little jackwagon, this is the third personal attack, reported and ignored.

Your apparent lack of understanding anyone elses point of view is ridiculous . my obtuse little friend. Have fun talking to the mods.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

look you little jackwagon, this is the third personal attack, reported and ignored.

Your apparent lack of understanding anyone elses point of view is ridiculous . my obtuse little friend. Have fun talking to the mods.

I suppose I'm on ignore by now.. oh well.. you attack and talk behind my back making jokes about what you pretended me to say.. then, every time I asked you for an argument I received straw man attacks, and now you are the offended one. Well, it was your choice... if at any point you want to come back and have an interesting discussion, you will be welcomed.