On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[SpeedOfSound]

Experialization - The process whereby god uses the senses to make his menticles appear as if they are an external reality to his little wave-minds.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Philosophomorical - pretty self-explanatory that one, I think.

[Little Idiot]

Is there any way to say that one experience is really the same as another? ...
and
... Only you talk about "experiences", mainly because you seem to want to wibble on about your experience of god, or some other sort of woo. Bend a spoon with it, Little Idiot. Then we'll know that your experience is actually about anything.

Well you believe as you wish, but my empirical evidence supports an alternative theory;
you say, when introducing the topic of gravity and acceleration;

You are in a windowless room in what is either an accelerated reference frame like an elevator, or you are experiencing a gravitational field. What is the correct "mental representation", given knowledge of these different varieties of mental experience?

Now I try to deal with facts of a converstaion, by which I mean what you actually said. You seem to wish to deal with some other version.

It is clear that you have mentioned 'you' and 'experience' quite enough for me to answer in terms of an individual having an experience of the two situaltions.

The reason why I say similar rather than identical, is because (in agreement with other posters, like SoS) I would suggest no two experiences are identical. I certainally would not wish to say there are two identical experiences. However, experiences could be close replicas.
Over all, similar fits my concept quite well, given that you introduced a subjective experience into the original context.
If you wish to repeat the discussion in terms of a pendulum clock I will probably avoid using the word experience, and if I did use it, I would not be talking of a subjective experience.

[Little Idiot]

Did you find all this too much work, and tired-tired seepy-seepy? Poor bebby. Have nice nappy-poo, and then get up to make more woo. And more poo.

STFU.

You have no idea what I have been doing IRL, why I am 9claiming to be) tired. And its not because of this silly little throw away forum discussion.

Get a life.

[SpeedOfSound]

Did you find all this too much work, and tired-tired seepy-seepy? Poor bebby. Have nice nappy-poo, and then get up to make more woo. And more poo.

STFU.

You have no idea what I have been doing IRL, why I am 9claiming to be) tired. And its not because of this silly little throw away forum discussion.

Get a life.

Seeing as you are awake I still want you to explain what is externalized in that illusion I showed you. You must of been either drunk or just waking up last time cuz you never explained this evidence against your externalization idea.

[Little Idiot]

Did you find all this too much work, and tired-tired seepy-seepy? Poor bebby. Have nice nappy-poo, and then get up to make more woo. And more poo.

STFU.

You have no idea what I have been doing IRL, why I am 9claiming to be) tired. And its not because of this silly little throw away forum discussion.

Get a life.

Seeing as you are awake I still want you to explain what is externalized in that illusion I showed you. You must of been either drunk or just waking up last time cuz you never explained this evidence against your externalization idea.

Morning.

I will not have much time for the forum untill (if things go well) thurday evening or as late as Sunday evening (if things dont go so well).
Doubly so when I am being mocked from all sides. Normally I dont care, as you know, but if I have other things needing my carefull attention, then I use the forum as a light distraction - I dont have the patience to put up with too much of the shit.

[GrahamH]

Defining 'I am the same' is an issue if identity, which relies on memory. You could say that while you are conscious there is an 'I', but you can;t say it is the same 'I' unless you can connect it to previous instants of consciousness with memory. Subjectivity is not continuous, but is blind to the discontinuities.

No, the personality depends on its memory for this, not the 'me' we are thinking of; 'this' is the observer who remains unchanged when we decide to behave differently. Its not the personality, its the awareness which animates the personality. Its not the 'I' but the awareness of the 'I'. It is not the 'I' who feels happy, but the awareness that is aware of 'I feel happy' The ego feels happy, this knows that the ego is feeling happy - this is the observer of the ego-self.

Remember the context; we are talking about 'what am I?'
The ego feels happy, but I am not the ego, this 'I' observes the ego.

You should think more about what makes the 'I' that was present when you were 6, the 'I' of 10 minutes ago and the 'I' an instant ago the 'same I'. 'Awareness does not link together. I am not aware of the 6 year old me as I am aware of now. Awareness is isolated in time and connected by memory.

Awareness is like the recording process in a tape recorder. A process that can start and stop, where instants of recording are isolated in time and connected only by the memory they lay down on the tape. The only things that give identity to the recording are the physical continuity of the recording head and the recording on the tape (memory).

I think your 'I' observer is like the near instantaneous magnetic flux in the recording head - inconstant and without identity or any 'mental capability'.

That which 'has the thoughts' is the thing which constructs thoughts, stores and retrieves information etc. Plainly that is not the subjective 'I', since you have no awareness of the processes. If the processes of thought, emotion etc are 'the mind' then 'I' am not the mind!

Well spotted.
The intellect and the memory, imagination and all the tools of the mind are not the 'I' who knows and observes the result of these things. These tools of the mind, and pieces or functions of the mind are not the 'I' we are looking for. The I we seek is the awareness that allows these things to happen, to be known, to be observer; this I is the observer in the mind, it is not the tools or products of the mind.

The 'awareness' is the ability to respond, which is what the brain does. There is no need to add another 'observer' that has no mind.

As a whole human I know I have 'experiences and think of myself as 'I'. But your supposed 'I' does not know or think. Therefore the knowledge of 'I' is not in 'I'. It must be in the parts that think, store memories, know things.

This knowing aspect of mind must know of an 'I' and there is nothing else that can know that. The 'I' is merely a representation of the system of physical responses within the system. I.E. it is all the brain responding to the world. There is no 'mental' beyond that.

The mind knows of an 'I' but is not the 'I'. The mind thinks but the 'I' does not.

The mind knows of an 'I' called the ego. But the 'I' who observes the mind is the 'I' we seek.

But it must be the 'mind' that knows the 'I', which is why you will never find the 'I' of this storm.

The mind is what the brain does.

Damn. You were doing so well.
At least say 'I think' before that, maybe?

All ideas are subject to potential revision, given evidence and reason.

'I' is a representation, made by the brain, to make the brain comprehensible to itself, by drastic simplification.

So 'I' am the mind.

You have failed to offer a convincing case. Introspection and reason suggest you are wrong. You need to unpack things a bit more.

The 'I am the mind' is the start, not the end of the trail for the 'I' that is of interest to me. First, establish what 'I' am not (body, thoughts, ego, etc) then follow the interest inside the mind to find out what exactly in this strange thing called 'mind' am I really.
This I that knows 'I am' is the observer, that which observes; the awareness.

Imagine the brain constructing a narrative of what it is doing, where it represents itself as 'I' and various responses as 'feelings'. Remember that it has no access to what neurons are doing, or that it is a brain telling itself stories. It only has the story to respond to as it does to trees and tigers. I think that produces just the sort of knowledge of a 'subjective view' as you are talking about.

[Surendra Darathy]

Well you believe as you wish, but my empirical evidence supports an alternative theory;
you say, when introducing the topic of gravity and acceleration;

You are in a windowless room in what is either an accelerated reference frame like an elevator, or you are experiencing a gravitational field. What is the correct "mental representation", given knowledge of these different varieties of mental experience?

Now I try to deal with facts of a converstaion, by which I mean what you actually said. You seem to wish to deal with some other version.

It is clear that you have mentioned 'you' and 'experience' quite enough for me to answer in terms of an individual having an experience of the two situaltions.

The reason why I say similar rather than identical, is because (in agreement with other posters, like SoS) I would suggest no two experiences are identical. I certainally would not wish to say there are two identical experiences. However, experiences could be close replicas.

Well, LI, that's a red herring, because the experiments in the two frames can be recorded by robotic clocks, and the data transmitted telemetrically to several distinct laboratories where human observers are examining the data. Since the data comes in as a time series of binary bits, including error-correcting codes like checksums, the human observers in different laboratories have nothing subjective to interject into the report. That is the reason that "intersubjective" science is reliable. You understand what instrumentation is, and you understand that the recording of the data is separate from the interpretation of it.

So, while you pretend to misunderstand the implications of the general-relativistic equivalence experiment, I can point out to the rest of the audience that you have simply tried another one of your squirming attempts to distract attention to your ex recto assertion that everything is ultimately subjective.

The entire point of intersubjective scientific observation, and the use of instrumentation to report data, is precisely what has led to the great progress of the scientific enterprise. And you're willing to toss it all out to protect your charade of simplicity, "everything is mental".

The point is that interlaboratory comparison of data from physics experiments depends on reporting experimental results as a time series of numeric data obtained from non-human instrumentation. This means that you must now attempt to undermine the entire structure of engineered scientific instrumentation and the social structure of scientific reporting in order to press your mentalist case that all these experiences, even of inventing scientific apparatus, is just a big illusion constantly being generated by your all-too-busy-busy-busy Big Mind.

Why don't you skip all the combative argumentation over minutiae as you fail again to mention that you believe scientific instrumentation is as much a mental construct as anything else. Your entire philosloppy amounts simply to repeating that "Everything is a mental construct". Fuck yes, Little Idiot: For you, even this conversation is not really happening, which is presumably why you feel so justified in showing such diminished respect for your audience that you will quibble over the details of the scientific method, while avoiding plainly re-asserting your big claim that scientific instrumentation, the social arrangement of the scientific culture, and even conversation itself is nothing but an ongoing performance of pure mental stuff. You always admit it, eventually, anyway.

Did you find all this too much work, and tired-tired seepy-seepy? Poor bebby. Have nice nappy-poo, and then get up to make more woo. And more poo.

STFU.

You have no idea what I have been doing IRL, why I am 9claiming to be) tired. And its not because of this silly little throw away forum discussion.

Get a life.

Yes, Little Idiot, I am sure we can all come to our conclusions as to what has motivated you to spend a month here, and many months at RDF going around and around about your mentalist bullshit. It's precisely because it is a throw-away discussion for you, your way of heaping disrespect on everyone who cannot see the depth and sincerity of your mentalist model. If you stated your model plainly, we could all see its magnificent depth and cogency. Anytime you're ready.

I am being mocked from all sides. Normally I dont care, as you know, but if I have other things needing my carefull attention, then I use the forum as a light distraction - I dont have the patience to put up with too much of the shit.

This looks like a hastily-engineered exit or hiatus until your audience, who have finally discovered your ploy, takes some of the heat off you. Yes, indeed, LI. Throw-away discussion. Now that you've lost the handle, toss the head away, too.

If you come back, don't be so fucking coy. Just make your bold claim that when you stand in front of a classroom, you're leading a double life as both a physics instructor and an imam, and delight in blurring the boundary between science and religion. It happens all over the muslim world, and in christian schools, and academies in hindu societies. Fart proudly, Little Idiot. Everyone who isn't already indoctrinated will smell it anyway.

[Surendra Darathy]

I think your 'I' observer is like the near instantaneous magnetic flux in the recording head - inconstant and without identity or any 'mental capability'.

Just to let you know I appreciate your attempt to illustrate some of the alternate models of subjective experience, and the role of memory in shaping what that subjective experience is subjectively "like" in a way that people can try to report it to each other.

I just think it's a pity you are addressing your efforts to someone who is going to waste them by claiming that the brain (as the seat of memory) is also just another part of the illusion of the material which the Big Mind has tossed up there to fool the unwisdom of the uninitiated. LI will consider physical models only so far, before retreating to the position that the physical substrate of the physical model is an elaborate hoax, and that ®eal ®eality™ is that we are all part of the god thingy.

It's catchy, in a way, and a lot of the woo-heads have picked up on it: As we gain deeper knowledge of the universe, all we are doing is coming to know god. The only problem is you have to assume god exists in order to go that way.

[Little Idiot]

Well you believe as you wish, but my empirical evidence supports an alternative theory;
you say, when introducing the topic of gravity and acceleration;

You are in a windowless room in what is either an accelerated reference frame like an elevator, or you are experiencing a gravitational field. What is the correct "mental representation", given knowledge of these different varieties of mental experience?

Now I try to deal with facts of a converstaion, by which I mean what you actually said. You seem to wish to deal with some other version.

It is clear that you have mentioned 'you' and 'experience' quite enough for me to answer in terms of an individual having an experience of the two situaltions.

The reason why I say similar rather than identical, is because (in agreement with other posters, like SoS) I would suggest no two experiences are identical. I certainally would not wish to say there are two identical experiences. However, experiences could be close replicas.

Well, LI, that's a red herring, because the experiments in the two frames can be recorded by robotic clocks, and the data transmitted telemetrically to several distinct laboratories where human observers are examining the data.

Its a red herring! Oh how clever of you. Start a question about experiencers and experience, then jump on the respondent for answering in terms of experiencers and experience.
I am quite aware that the topic can be understood by considering mechanical devices, like pendulums. Its just not how you framed the question.
If thats the standard of the debate, then as far as I am concerned thats /end of topic

So, while you pretend to misunderstand the implications of the general-relativistic equivalence experiment, I can point out to the rest of the audience that you have simply tried another one of your squirming attempts to distract attention to your ex recto assertion that everything is ultimately subjective.

B.S. you wish to move the goal posts, and say I am at fault....

This looks like a hastily-engineered exit or hiatus until your audience, who have finally discovered your ploy, takes some of the heat off you. Yes, indeed, LI. Throw-away discussion. Now that you've lost the handle, toss the head away, too.

If you come back, don't be so fucking coy.

Why are you talking such rubbish?
I am not leaving, so no exit, hastily-engineered or other wise.
No exit, no need to come back.

And I did declare a couple of days back I was going to be busy this week. I would link to the post to prove the point, but you are providing such low quality content in your posts, it is simply not worth while bothering to do so.

[Surendra Darathy]

Now I try to deal with facts of a converstaion, by which I mean what you actually said. You seem to wish to deal with some other version.

You, Little Idiot, are fucking gone from the universe of interlocutors I take seriously.

It is clear that you have mentioned 'you' and 'experience' quite enough for me to answer in terms of an individual having an experience of the two situaltions.

Yeah, but since you have disappeared from the universe of people I take seriously, your claims of what is "clear" are discarded, as far as I am concerned. You can't even be arsed to understand that "individual experience" is not at issue.

The reason why I say similar rather than identical, is because (in agreement with other posters, like SoS) I would suggest no two experiences are identical. I certainally would not wish to say there are two identical experiences. However, experiences could be close replicas.

Yeah, but you can't even be arsed to understand that "individual experience" is not at issue. And you insist on repeating your refusal to consider it. That's true belief, for ya.

Start a question about experiencers and experience, then jump on the respondent for answering in terms of experiencers and experience.

Unfortunately for you, you can't be arsed to understand the difference between intersubjective measurement and individual experience. Your loss. You are now excluded from the universe of people I take seriously. For good reason.

I am quite aware that the topic can be understood by considering mechanical devices, like pendulums. Its just not how you framed the question.

I framed the question in terms of pendulum clocks, and you recast it to individual experience, like your slithery woo requires you to do. You are now excluded from the universe of people I take seriously.

If thats the standard of the debate, then as far as I am concerned thats /end of topic

That's great, LI, because, really, I'd written you off months ago. I just entertain myself with your wibbling.

Why are you talking such rubbish?
I am not leaving, so no exit, hastily-engineered or other wise.
No exit, no need to come back.

Yes, but you are gone from the universe of people I take seriously, and were thus as of months ago. Why couldn't you tell?

And I did declare a couple of days back I was going to be busy this week. I would link to the post to prove the point, but you are providing such low quality content in your posts, it is simply not worth while bothering to do so.

Well, then: Don't fucking bother. You're off the list of people I can take seriously. You were off months ago. Now you know.

[Little Idiot]

Defining 'I am the same' is an issue if identity, which relies on memory. You could say that while you are conscious there is an 'I', but you can;t say it is the same 'I' unless you can connect it to previous instants of consciousness with memory. Subjectivity is not continuous, but is blind to the discontinuities.

No, the personality depends on its memory for this, not the 'me' we are thinking of; 'this' is the observer who remains unchanged when we decide to behave differently. Its not the personality, its the awareness which animates the personality. Its not the 'I' but the awareness of the 'I'. It is not the 'I' who feels happy, but the awareness that is aware of 'I feel happy' The ego feels happy, this knows that the ego is feeling happy - this is the observer of the ego-self.

Remember the context; we are talking about 'what am I?'
The ego feels happy, but I am not the ego, this 'I' observes the ego.

You should think more about what makes the 'I' that was present when you were 6, the 'I' of 10 minutes ago and the 'I' an instant ago the 'same I'. 'Awareness does not link together. I am not aware of the 6 year old me as I am aware of now. Awareness is isolated in time and connected by memory.

I have spent decades wondering what the fuck the 'real I' is.
And I do think it is exactly the same awareness, the content and context of awareness have changed, but not the awareness itself.
Awareness is not in time, it is aware of time, but the shackles are not rigid, in my experience.

Awareness is like the recording process in a tape recorder. A process that can start and stop, where instants of recording are isolated in time and connected only by the memory they lay down on the tape. The only things that give identity to the recording are the physical continuity of the recording head and the recording on the tape (memory).

I think your 'I' observer is like the near instantaneous magnetic flux in the recording head - inconstant and without identity or any 'mental capability'.

If you say it has no mental capacity, I respond without it there is no mental capacity!

That which 'has the thoughts' is the thing which constructs thoughts, stores and retrieves information etc. Plainly that is not the subjective 'I', since you have no awareness of the processes. If the processes of thought, emotion etc are 'the mind' then 'I' am not the mind!

Well spotted.
The intellect and the memory, imagination and all the tools of the mind are not the 'I' who knows and observes the result of these things. These tools of the mind, and pieces or functions of the mind are not the 'I' we are looking for. The I we seek is the awareness that allows these things to happen, to be known, to be observer; this I is the observer in the mind, it is not the tools or products of the mind.

The 'awareness' is the ability to respond, which is what the brain does. There is no need to add another 'observer' that has no mind.

I think ego responds, awareness observes both the input and output, but is not touched by either.

As a whole human I know I have 'experiences and think of myself as 'I'. But your supposed 'I' does not know or think. Therefore the knowledge of 'I' is not in 'I'. It must be in the parts that think, store memories, know things.

Without awareness, there is no thinking, experiencing nor knowing. It underpins and facilitates these things.

This knowing aspect of mind must know of an 'I' and there is nothing else that can know that. The 'I' is merely a representation of the system of physical responses within the system. I.E. it is all the brain responding to the world. There is no 'mental' beyond that.

I agree the ego-self is a thought construct. But the ego is observed, we know that because we can observer our own ego. A simple way is to just STOP what ever one is doing and look at oneself doing it. You can observe your body acting, your mind thinking, thoughts poping in, and if you pay attention, you can see your own attention watching these things.

The mind knows of an 'I' but is not the 'I'. The mind thinks but the 'I' does not.

The mind knows of an 'I' called the ego. But the 'I' who observes the mind is the 'I' we seek.

But it must be the 'mind' that knows the 'I', which is why you will never find the 'I' of this storm.

Not so. The mind knows the ego-I. Awareness within the mind allows it to know this.
The mind knows its own thoughts, awareness within it allows it to do this.
Normally our awareness is focussed on our thoughts, our senses, our body.
But the mind is a remarkably flexible thing, it can be trained to look at itself and its own inner workings. It can be trained, and we can be aware of awareness, odd as it sounds.

The mind is what the brain does.

Damn. You were doing so well.
At least say 'I think' before that, maybe?

All ideas are subject to potential revision, given evidence and reason.

'I' is a representation, made by the brain, to make the brain comprehensible to itself, by drastic simplification.

Yes, the ego-I is a thought construction. The awareness is not a thought construct, it is that which knows all thought constructs. We can talk of 'awareness' as a word, and this word is a thought construct, or we can 'be aware' in which case awareness is a state of being which allows the construction of thoughts, but the awareness is not a human-thought-construct.

So 'I' am the mind.

You have failed to offer a convincing case. Introspection and reason suggest you are wrong. You need to unpack things a bit more.

The 'I am the mind' is the start, not the end of the trail for the 'I' that is of interest to me. First, establish what 'I' am not (body, thoughts, ego, etc) then follow the interest inside the mind to find out what exactly in this strange thing called 'mind' am I really.
This I that knows 'I am' is the observer, that which observes; the awareness.

Imagine the brain constructing a narrative of what it is doing, where it represents itself as 'I' and various responses as 'feelings'. Remember that it has no access to what neurons are doing, or that it is a brain telling itself stories. It only has the story to respond to as it does to trees and tigers. I think that produces just the sort of knowledge of a 'subjective view' as you are talking about.

Indeed, the activity of the brain (or activity of the mind) creates these things; thoughts, feelings, stories, descriptions, self images.
But thats not the level I am talking about. All these are things of which we are aware to a larger or smaller level, these are objects of awareness, but not the awareness. The awareness is on a subtler level.

Once we identify our inner reality with that, not these (things) then we change our perspective in a very real way.

[Little Idiot]

Now I try to deal with facts of a converstaion, by which I mean what you actually said. You seem to wish to deal with some other version.

You, Little Idiot, are fucking gone from the universe of interlocutors I take seriously.
...
Well, then: Don't fucking bother. You're off the list of people I can take seriously. You were off months ago. Now you know.

[jamest]

Now I try to deal with facts of a converstaion, by which I mean what you actually said. You seem to wish to deal with some other version.

You, Little Idiot, are fucking gone from the universe of interlocutors I take seriously.
...
Well, then: Don't fucking bother. You're off the list of people I can take seriously. You were off months ago. Now you know.

Man, he's in a bad mood today.

[Kenny Login]

Indeed, the activity of the brain (or activity of the mind) creates these things; thoughts, feelings, stories, descriptions, self images.
But thats not the level I am talking about. All these are things of which we are aware to a larger or smaller level, these are objects of awareness, but not the awareness. The awareness is on a subtler level.

Once we identify our inner reality with that, not these (things) then we change our perspective in a very real way.

LI -

I've missed quite a lot so possibly everyone has covered these points already.

As far as I recall, the problem for 'pure' R2 is whether it can dispel the illusion of the observer, via scientific and logical terms that don't just sound kind of reasonable, but actually do the business and obviate the 'I', full stop. Which is the meat and bones of what I think you are getting at when you talk about 'awareness'. Or have I got it wrong?

And the problem for 'pure' R1 is how to account for the seemingly manifest world being, let's just say, different to other realms of mind, at least for many people.

Sorry if this is all old hat by now, if you or SOS or anyone else could link to relevant posts that would be great. But a brief summary would be even better! (I'm too lazy to go back over the whole thread.)

Thanks.