On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[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.

Man, he's in a bad mood today.

[Little Idiot]

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.

Hi Kenny, welcome back.

I am a bit busy untill tomorrow evening or a bit later than that, but I will 'knock something together' when I can.

Its submissions week for the final year IBO students, so I have lots of last minute course work redrafts to mark at the moment. Deadline (to be marked by me) is tomorrow, so I hope to be done then - but its a 'soft' school deadline, so I may still have some special cases coming in for a day or so...

I would suggest looking back at GrahamH and my recent exchange, see if there is anything you find worth reading.

[GrahamH]

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.

Thanks, I appreciate that. You are right, of course, I am wasting my time with LI. The discussion can only be 'for entertainment only' as they say on the Woo TV shows.

NB, I don't think it only about people reporting to each other. I think it is also the 'subjective report' (which is not a subjective thing 'observed' by an 'I')

[Little Idiot]

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.

Thanks, I appreciate that. You are right, of course, I am wasting my time with LI. The discussion can only be 'for entertainment only' as they say on the Woo TV shows.

NB, I don't think it only about people reporting to each other. I think it is also the 'subjective report' (which is not a subjective thing 'observed' by an 'I')

I too appreciate your attempts to exchange ideas in a mature and sensible manner GrahamH.
However, I define 'waste of time' differently to SD; I dont hold out much hope of changing your mind, nor of you changing mine - but thats not really the point, is it...
Only if the point is 'winning', and if 'winning' means converting others to your opinion by force of will, then our exchange is a waste of time.
If the point is exchanging ideas to see how other minds think, thereby broadening our own understanding and deepening our own thought, maybe even modifying or refining our own though a little, then I think the exchange is very far from a 'waste of time.'

[GrahamH]

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.

I don't doubt you have, LI. If you have concluded that subjectivity is subjectivity I can't applaud you for that. A flame is a flame. We could label flames 'The Flame' and claim that every time we light a candle it is the same The Flame that burns. We could label the process of recording sound onto magnetic tape 'The Recording' and say that every time a play button button anywhere is pressed The Recording is there experiencing the sound into memory.

What connects multiple instances of any process such that we can justify calling them continuations of the same thing? I think there are two - the continuity of physical substrate (same body, same candle, same tape recorder) and continuity of information / identity / memory (memory, next instant of combustion initiated by previous moment, continuity of recording in the flux on the tape). Physicality and memory define it as 'the same I'.

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

I think you said it. You stripped every aspect of mind away and claimed that there was something left, which you call 'I'. You said 'I' does not think, remember etc. The 'I' in your model accounts for no aspect of mind other than this supposed 'observer of experience'. Despite removing mind from the picture you tried to claim that I = mind, which is plainly absurd by normal definition of 'mind'.

What does 'I' do? What effects does it have? Nothing, according to you: -

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

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

"Underpins" without touching or being touched? 'Facilitates' rather than does?
Does it make without making and think without thinking? More contradictions?

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.

Your mistake is to think that this 'I' is more than a label for the ability of brains to self-reference and notice their own behaviour in the same way they notice the behaviour of rabbits and rivers.

The "pooping in and out" should be a big clue that the 'I' isn't doing anything, but is merely a category label. "The rabbit is eating my lettuce", "The ego is making me do things I don't like", "the observer is watching the sunset". It's all a brain making some sense of the world.

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.

It doesn't sound odd, just a little mixed up perhaps. 'The Observer' ('I') is a character in a narrative,as is 'Ego'. We can make the narrative more elaborate and it will seem as real as any of it. So Observer of observer is just another character but we suppose it to be identical with what it observes. You could stack awareness of awareness to any depth, but we can only take so much woo. The brain obviously has the capability to respond to what the brain does, which is 'awareness of awareness'.

'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.

Awareness is response. The brain responds. 'Awareness' is a category used to refer to this responsive ability of brains. There is no call for an observer of awareness, unless you can say what it does and how it does it.

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

Yes, you can extend the fantasy and construct a bigger story. It is ironic that a man who values elimination of Ego wants to place his fictional 'I, maker of experience, essence of the universe' at centre stage. Just because you can imagine it doesn't make it real. Denying what evidence of reality we have doesn't seem like a route to truth.

[GrahamH]

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.

Thanks, I appreciate that. You are right, of course, I am wasting my time with LI. The discussion can only be 'for entertainment only' as they say on the Woo TV shows.

NB, I don't think it only about people reporting to each other. I think it is also the 'subjective report' (which is not a subjective thing 'observed' by an 'I')

I too appreciate your attempts to exchange ideas in a mature and sensible manner GrahamH.
However, I define 'waste of time' differently to SD; I dont hold out much hope of changing your mind, nor of you changing mine - but thats not really the point, is it...
Only if the point is 'winning', and if 'winning' means converting others to your opinion by force of will, then our exchange is a waste of time.
If the point is exchanging ideas to see how other minds think, thereby broadening our own understanding and deepening our own thought, maybe even modifying or refining our own though a little, then I think the exchange is very far from a 'waste of time.'

Thank you LI. You are right that exchange of ideas is worthwhile in itself and that this is not a debate to won or lost.

It would be good if you engaged with contrary ideas to explore them. I'm not a naive realist. I'm happy to explore ideas such as 'its all a simulation' or even 'its all mental' if that gives us something to analyse. But your philosophy seems to leave the physical world untouched and just says it's fundamental essence is BM mental. You haven't explained 'awareness' by saying everything is awareness, but most of it just doesn't know it.

What if 'The Observer' is a character in a brain story? What if?

[jamest]

What if 'The Observer' is a character in a brain story? What if?

You should actually start a thread based on this very question... and defend your own point-of-view, for a change.

I would like to entertain this question and analyse potential flaws in the idea inherent within it. Firstly, I'd like to ask you a question:

If 'subjective experience' is really reducible to brain states that are essentially equivalent to 'data', then why is it that 'the observer' observes something else other than data?
The question is probably vague, so I'll try and explain what I mean. For instance, science essentially tries to reduce what is observed to data, so that it all more-or-less becomes reducible to mathematical statements. But if, as you say, that which is being observed is already precise data, then why doesn't the observer see that?

For example, you might say that the observation of a tree is essentially reducible to the observation of a brain state that is depicting a precise mathematical model of that object. So why don't we see that mathematical model? Why, instead, does the observer observe 'colours'; 'smells'; 'sounds' and 'touches' that culminate in his label of 'a tree'?
Also - and significantly - why does the observer then need to proceed to anylse the details of the sensations in order to construct mathematical models of that tree? According to you, the mathematical data of the tree is already being observed (because that's what you say that the observer is really observing), so this data should be readily available to the observer - he shouldn't have to spend immense amounts of time trying to work out mathematical models of what is being observed, if mathematical models are being observed.

So, there is a problem with saying that the observer is observing brain states depicting mathematical models, since clearly the observer doesn't initially have a clue about any mathematical models. Those are things that he has to work out for himself.

I have other questions, which you might want to address later.

[GrahamH]

What if 'The Observer' is a character in a brain story? What if?

You should actually start a thread based on this very question... and defend your own point-of-view, for a change.

OK

The subjective observer is a fictional character

[Horwood Beer-Master]

What?