Where is your experience?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well are we dealing again with experience being equal to the word perception? Because I agree that the brain, assuming all all PNS activity were being transmitted "perfectly" to the brain even with the distance the PERCEPTION would probably be that the subject would perceive his or herself on the train, not as a brain in the vat. This is simple to explain; the brain itself doesn't have the "probe" of the body to determine where it is (maybe it does if there are receptors in and around the brain that determine location, but that's a minor consideration to the experiment you're talking about) regardless all perception would determine that you are indeed on the train.

However, ALL that perception IS transmitted to the brain where the perceptions are summated. That's why I actually think the one subject being in two places at once is accurate.

Example: Let's take the BBC Horizon video to an extreme. Let's have the one guy with the screens be labeled (A) and the guy with the camera labeled (B). We already see the effects of when the two are standing across from eachother, A receives the sight stimuli from B and the brain interprets it as it being his own stimuli. Well let's send B on a train then. A will perceive B as still being himself throughout the train ride, at least visually. A might as well JUST be the brain in the vat at this point too! But it's still the stimuli of B's movements being summated in A's brain. For all intents and purposes he might as well be in both places. It'd be basically a very very very complex periscope/fiberoptic eye. B is a prosthesis of A. A does the perceiving, and B is just the probe that transmits the stimuli to be perceived.

I see your point, but I believe it was clearer before as I was trying to follow your argument here and I ended at the same place that with your previous one.

I believe the "noise" is generated because we tend to take for granted that the person is his brain. On the other hand, I want to rely more in facts and less in beliefs. When "I see myself" (my "internal sense of being" or "experience of being" or "consciousness") all I'm aware of is that I am where my body is, as it is just with my body that I can have sensations and ability to act (both of them, I believe, necesary components of what we call "having a conscious experience").

So, I would argue that the consciousness is in the whole body and its environment, not "just" in the brain. For me at least, it is obvious that the whole body + environment equation is needed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I believe the "noise" is generated because we tend to take for granted that the person is his brain.

We do not "take for granted" that the "person is his brain."

We know as solid fact, through evidence, that our perceptions of the outside world, our sense of self, and everything that can reasonably fall under the concept of identity or definition of the person exists in the brain.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

experience
"n.
1. The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind: a child's first experience of snow.
2.
a. Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill: a lesson taught by experience; a carpenter with experience in roof repair.
b. The knowledge or skill so derived.
3.
a. An event or a series of events participated in or lived through.
b. The totality of such events in the past of an individual or group."

I think you use "experience" as the underlined part, and I use it as the bolded part. That's all there is to it.

Btw, where would you say the experiences of dreams happen? At the place the dreamer perceives himself to be?

It's like the MMAAAAAAAAAAATRIIIIIIIIIIXXXXXX!!!

I believe both the underlined and bolded parts are the same, and I just answered above. That said, your raise an interesting question.

The answer could be tricky. Let's begin with The Matrix, most would argue that Neo was (really) where his brain was, connected as a battery to the machines, and not "inside the Matrix".. but for every conceivable purpose, what Neo would report (and any person inside the matrix around him) would be that he actually IS where Thomas Anderson is... (people in there would have no problem pointing to his head to the question rised at the OP). At the dream example, I happen to be a Lucid Dreamer, several times a week I'm aware of being inside a dream, and I have talked to dream characters about "what is reality" explaining to them that I'm really at some other place dreaming in my bed. Of course, it is weird, but again, for every technical purpose my experience is at the dream.

So, recapitulating, while (at least for me) is obvious that any individual's consciousness is sustained or created or instantiated by its entire body + environment relationship, I believe also that the actual location of the experience is, well, where the experience is happening. Sure if something happened to my body while I'm dreaming, the dream would dissapear, and the same would happen if somebody disconnected the brain in the vat from the body in the train, if that brain dies (or the body dies for that matter) its consciousness would dissapear. Oh.. an interesting conclusion comes from here... a difference would be that it might be possible (I'm not sure) to recover the actual consciouss experience if the brain is connected to other body.. but if the brain was killed then no experience would be possible for the body in the train, unless its connected to another brain, but then it would be another person.


_____
Note:

(this is for those obsessed to find any claim of some "supernatural stuff" going on...)

NO NO NO I'm NOT attempting to claim that consciousness is "supernatural" or "magical" or "mystical" or "immaterial" nor any "goddidit" or any other thing you are surely thinking.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

We do not "take for granted" that the "person is his brain."

We know as solid fact, through evidence, that our perceptions of the outside world, our sense of self, and everything that can reasonably fall under the concept of identity or definition of the person exists in the brain.

No.

Can you please go back to the beginning of the thread and look for the link to what Naive Realism is?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm aware of the distinction between Naive realism and sensory dependent idealism forms of perceptive theory. I, like you claim to, think it's obvious that there is a reality that exists dependent of our perception of it. Reality being that thing that doesn't go away when you stop believing it and all that....

I just fail to see how this relates to the questions you keep asking.

 

[Lowpro]

So, I would argue that the consciousness is in the whole body and its environment, not "just" in the brain. For me at least, it is obvious that the whole body + environment equation is needed.

I would say that's too vague. Consciousness occurs locally in the brain, we know that. You aren't conscious without the thing, and we know that too.

But what makes consciousness occur at all (in the brain...just want to hammer that home) comes from the stimuli, stimuli that occurs when stimulated by something else (be it your body, "the probe" or neural activity from drugs). Your body is the probe that sends the stimuli to the brain to be summated, and this process is actually a rube goldberg device of sorts; if there was a blockage from PNS to CNS you won't be conscious of it; just shoot a paralyzed man in the leg and ask if he is conscious of it). It really is where your sense of "self" is made, though it makes it through your "experience probe" which has a lot to do with your body. Of course, these experiences don't necessarily need your body as dicking around in your brain can elicit conscious things, but these derive from brain development and neuron association.

All in the brain. If I could, I'd make a stamp press out of it and stamp "In the brain" everywhere in this thread. It's a little more than just "taken for granted" and I think there becomes a breakdown in communication between the specifics of the words we are using here...

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm aware of the distinction between Naive realism and sensory dependent idealism forms of perceptive theory. I, like you claim to, think it's obvious that there is a reality that exists dependent of our perception of it. Reality being that thing that doesn't go away when you stop believing it and all that....

I just fail to see how this relates to the questions you keep asking.

Then I'm lost about your point here. Can you rephrase please?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I would say that's too vague. Consciousness occurs locally in the brain, we know that. You aren't conscious without the thing, and we know that too.

But what makes consciousness occur at all (in the brain...just want to hammer that home) comes from the stimuli, stimuli that occurs when stimulated by something else (be it your body, "the probe" or neural activity from drugs). Your body is the probe that sends the stimuli to the brain to be summated, and this process is actually a rube goldberg device of sorts; if there was a blockage from PNS to CNS you won't be conscious of it; just shoot a paralyzed man in the leg and ask if he is conscious of it). It really is where your sense of "self" is made, though it makes it through your "experience probe" which has a lot to do with your body. Of course, these experiences don't necessarily need your body as dicking around in your brain can elicit conscious things, but these derive from brain development and neuron association.

All in the brain. If I could, I'd make a stamp press out of it and stamp "In the brain" everywhere in this thread. It's a little more than just "taken for granted" and I think there becomes a breakdown in communication between the specifics of the words we are using here...

That would be an oversimplification, I believe, but you are correct, what is needed is the brain and the stimuli. It doesn't matter if the stimuli comes from a simulation, a remote controlled body, a machine or a cyborg. And so, in the end, yes, it comes down to words as I believe the concepts are essentially the same.

Now, what I don't see (but of course I know is just a belief of mine) is that the "brain alone" is capable of anything similar to creating "consciousness" without the stimuli, and so, I believe it is pointless to claim that "consciousness" resides somehow "at the brain". I believe that it is a property that only arises in the presence of the stimuli and that its location is at the stimuli (if that makes sense).

 

[The Norseman]

Have been thinking a little about this and I'm wanting to throw a question out there:

would there be any connection between our sense of equilibrium -- where I always thought it was between the ears and behind the eyes -- and this sense of where 'we' are? Could this natural balance make us feel centered and 'there'?

I hope I'm being clear with my question...

 

[Halfcentaur]

Wow no, sounds both scaring and intriguing... have you?

Yes I may, but not in the classic sense. I develop a strange feeling that my thoughts and perception of time are unusually faster than normal, and there is a distinct tone of urgency and desperation that suddenly is intrinsic to any sound or thought I have, which is completely irrational and strange. The sound of a leaf in the wind or the water running suddenly seems to be desperately urgent to the point of exasperation, almost like synesthesia, but instead of sounds and colors being mixed up, it's sounds/thoughts/concepts and emotion. I feel like these mundane sounds are screaming at me with urgency. The feeling lasts about as long as deja vu sometimes, or rarely a minute or two. Though I've had a few episodes where it lasted for over an hour.

I used to think it was just derealization or depersonalization connected to dissociative states, but I've recently found people online describing the process in uncanny detail. Which is so strange after a life time of trying to tell doctors about this who had no idea what I was talking about.

It's believed to be a possible form of Alice in Wonderland Syndrome or temporal epilepsy.

 

[Lowpro]

Now, what I don't see (but of course I know is just a belief of mine) is that the "brain alone" is capable of anything similar to creating "consciousness" without the stimuli, and so, I believe it is pointless to claim that "consciousness" resides somehow "at the brain". I believe that it is a property that only arises in the presence of the stimuli and that its location is at the stimuli (if that makes sense).

Well would a better analysis be then to instead separate the brain from all those stimuli? Put THOSE on a train? But in doing so you'd remove a massive portion of the brain itself...

At some point I just think you're not understanding the brain =\. There are MANY parts that perform "unconscious" processes but the parts that are committing conscious processes are still a part of the brain. I don't quite agree with your conclusion, but I can see how you got there. I just think you need to understand more about the brain.

Again I can only believe it comes down to us fleshing out what consciousness "is". If a person born just as a head, no body no proprioreceptors or nocireceptors at the VERY least they could be conscious, just not conscious to your predisposition. The same for many people who don't have access to particular faculties are not "conscious" (ie. understanding and interpreting information) but they're still convinced they are conscious at the very least. I would call it a grievous error to equate the sum of experience to consciousness. Not that I imply that that is what you're saying, but your logic follows to that conclusion for the time being.

I believe that it is a property that only arises in the presence of the stimuli and that its location is at the stimuli

That would ignore the stimuli being transduced to the brain. What you may be forgetting is that the body/whatever ON THE TRAIN is still, for the purposes of your exercise, having all their stimuli being transduced to the local brain to be processed. It requires the brain; stimuli aren't experiences without them, though stimuli can occur. A stimuli doesn't equal experience; a stimuli is a switch being flipped. It takes the brain to make sense of it, and therefor consciousness.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I believe both the underlined and bolded parts are the same, and I just answered above.

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.

That said, your raise an interesting question.

The answer could be tricky. Let's begin with The Matrix, most would argue that Neo was (really) where his brain was, connected as a battery to the machines, and not "inside the Matrix".. but for every conceivable purpose, what Neo would report (and any person inside the matrix around him) would be that he actually IS where Thomas Anderson is... (people in there would have no problem pointing to his head to the question rised at the OP). At the dream example, I happen to be a Lucid Dreamer, several times a week I'm aware of being inside a dream, and I have talked to dream characters about "what is reality" explaining to them that I'm really at some other place dreaming in my bed. Of course, it is weird, but again, for every technical purpose my experience is at the dream.

So, recapitulating, while (at least for me) is obvious that any individual's consciousness is sustained or created or instantiated by its entire body + environment relationship, I believe also that the actual location of the experience is, well, where the experience is happening. Sure if something happened to my body while I'm dreaming, the dream would dissapear, and the same would happen if somebody disconnected the brain in the vat from the body in the train, if that brain dies (or the body dies for that matter) its consciousness would dissapear. Oh.. an interesting conclusion comes from here... a difference would be that it might be possible (I'm not sure) to recover the actual consciouss experience if the brain is connected to other body.. but if the brain was killed then no experience would be possible for the body in the train, unless its connected to another brain, but then it would be another person.

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.

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).

 

[punshhh]

Yes I may, but not in the classic sense. I develop a strange feeling that my thoughts and perception of time are unusually faster than normal, and there is a distinct tone of urgency and desperation that suddenly is intrinsic to any sound or thought I have, which is completely irrational and strange. The sound of a leaf in the wind or the water running suddenly seems to be desperately urgent to the point of exasperation, almost like synesthesia, but instead of sounds and colors being mixed up, it's sounds/thoughts/concepts and emotion. I feel like these mundane sounds are screaming at me with urgency. The feeling lasts about as long as deja vu sometimes, or rarely a minute or two. Though I've had a few episodes where it lasted for over an hour.

I used to think it was just derealization or depersonalization connected to dissociative states, but I've recently found people online describing the process in uncanny detail. Which is so strange after a life time of trying to tell doctors about this who had no idea what I was talking about.

It's believed to be a possible form of Alice in Wonderland Syndrome or temporal epilepsy.

I have had numerous episodes which fit your description accurately while taking hallucinogens.

 

[punshhh]

I believe both the underlined and bolded parts are the same, and I just answered above. That said, your raise an interesting question.

The answer could be tricky. Let's begin with The Matrix, most would argue that Neo was (really) where his brain was, connected as a battery to the machines, and not "inside the Matrix".. but for every conceivable purpose, what Neo would report (and any person inside the matrix around him) would be that he actually IS where Thomas Anderson is... (people in there would have no problem pointing to his head to the question rised at the OP). At the dream example, I happen to be a Lucid Dreamer, several times a week I'm aware of being inside a dream, and I have talked to dream characters about "what is reality" explaining to them that I'm really at some other place dreaming in my bed. Of course, it is weird, but again, for every technical purpose my experience is at the dream.

So, recapitulating, while (at least for me) is obvious that any individual's consciousness is sustained or created or instantiated by its entire body + environment relationship, I believe also that the actual location of the experience is, well, where the experience is happening. Sure if something happened to my body while I'm dreaming, the dream would dissapear, and the same would happen if somebody disconnected the brain in the vat from the body in the train, if that brain dies (or the body dies for that matter) its consciousness would dissapear. Oh.. an interesting conclusion comes from here... a difference would be that it might be possible (I'm not sure) to recover the actual consciouss experience if the brain is connected to other body.. but if the brain was killed then no experience would be possible for the body in the train, unless its connected to another brain, but then it would be another person.

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.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

That makes complete sense.

(Well, I'd prefer the term model rather than projection, but no other objections.)

 

[godless dave]

... 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?

Yes.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Have been thinking a little about this and I'm wanting to throw a question out there:

would there be any connection between our sense of equilibrium -- where I always thought it was between the ears and behind the eyes -- and this sense of where 'we' are? Could this natural balance make us feel centered and 'there'?

I hope I'm being clear with my question...

If I understand where you are coming from, I believe it is part of it, as we have seen in the thread people tend to believe that their location (this is the location of their "self") is right at the center of their most used sensorial inputs, most would choose naturally the eyes. That said, the sense of hearing and balance are pretty important too, and I'm willing to extend this to the whole body, with our ability to perceive textures, temp, body position and movements, etc.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It's believed to be a possible form of Alice in Wonderland Syndrome or temporal epilepsy.

I have had numerous episodes which fit your description accurately while taking hallucinogens.

Very interesting Halfcentaur, thanks for sharing. I believe the point to highlight here is that our, daily experience, is based on some kind of homeostatic balance, constantly kept in place by both biological and cultural factors. But I believe that we tend to take for granted that, the particular way we experience "the world" is nothing but some particular way, and it is relatively easy to alter it using substances like punshhh mentions. Sure, the "normal way" its most probably like that because it is shaped by survival pressures, but that doesn't make it "more real".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well would a better analysis be then to instead separate the brain from all those stimuli? Put THOSE on a train? But in doing so you'd remove a massive portion of the brain itself...

I dont get your point here, can you rephrase?

At some point I just think you're not understanding the brain =\. There are MANY parts that perform "unconscious" processes but the parts that are committing conscious processes are still a part of the brain. I don't quite agree with your conclusion, but I can see how you got there. I just think you need to understand more about the brain.

Understand what? I don't see a point to which I could agree or disagree. The experience of that individual is at the train, IMO. If we putted the brain on the train.. and let the body stay at the lab.. I would say that the individual in question wouldn't claim "I'm in a moving train". He will be right there, talking to us, and if we asked anybody to enter the room and talk to him, where do you think they would point at when asked where is he?

Again I can only believe it comes down to us fleshing out what consciousness "is". If a person born just as a head, no body no proprioreceptors or nocireceptors at the VERY least they could be conscious, just not conscious to your predisposition. The same for many people who don't have access to particular faculties are not "conscious" (ie. understanding and interpreting information) but they're still convinced they are conscious at the very least. I would call it a grievous error to equate the sum of experience to consciousness. Not that I imply that that is what you're saying, but your logic follows to that conclusion for the time being.

I believe that individual would not be conscious and would not be able to develop anything like an experience. Have you read the biography of Hellen Keller? I think it illustrates my point.

That would ignore the stimuli being transduced to the brain. What you may be forgetting is that the body/whatever ON THE TRAIN is still, for the purposes of your exercise, having all their stimuli being transduced to the local brain to be processed. It requires the brain; stimuli aren't experiences without them, though stimuli can occur. A stimuli doesn't equal experience; a stimuli is a switch being flipped. It takes the brain to make sense of it, and therefor consciousness.

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".

 

[punshhh]

... 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?

No I'm not saying that.